I was looking closer at the Wii graphics and actually started to feel a bit disappointed that they decided to go with inferior graphics in order to keep the price lowered. Not that the graphics seem that bad, but they are not on par with 360. Games mean a lot to me and I'm looking forward to the Wii system more than any other console and I am willing to put my money towards it. I would certainly like it better if they decided to go with superior graphics at a higher costs.
So what do you think? Is superior graphics worth the price or is Nintendo making a good choice?
Let's face it, no one is expecting Mario to really look any diffrent than he has for the past twenty-some-odd years, and that is primarily what the Wii is focusing on right now (Mario franchise). Well, for example, let's take a gander at the Twilight Princess trailers and screenshots, are these not beautiful?
I mean, sure, the Wii's graphics will be less than the Xbox 360 and the PS3, but Nintendo was never really founded on graphics, their games are all about fun (and of course, the occasionally few break these walls, but let's forsake those for now). But for the cost of what the Wii is compared to the 360 and PS3, plus the amazing games that you'll be getting (probably for less than the 360 and PS3 games as well), I have no doubt in my mind that it is worth sacrificing a bit of graphics for a lower cost.
Now, of course, if the price variant was only say, 40-50 dollars, that would be a bad move.
I do think it's a shame that some 3rd-parties will pass on Wii versions of multiplatform games for the 360 and ps3 because of this, but at least for now they're all focussed on creating original software for it that can't really be ported to those other two systems. It works both ways. Graphics were never important to me, no. I'd buy Super Stick Brothers Brawl if it were fun.
I admit that it's a shame, but I don't mind so much.
Superior Graphics... well it depends. For multi-plaform games, I'd likely choose the one that has better performance. So 60FPS > 30FPS
But it changes. Let's say the lower performance had better extras. Then my choice might change. You don't have to be crazy about graphics to enjoy a game.
After seeing the Smash Brothers: Brawl trailer, I can officially say I'm way pleased with the graphics.
... I guess I'm the only one left who's happy with it?
:(
This is like asking if it's worth it to have good games. I like graphics, so the answer is a big yes.
No, I don't think it's a good idea. The best games deserve all the polycount that is technologically possible. Video games aren't some douchebag hobby of mine-- they are my life. I'm dedicating my life to computer animation. How expensive this life of mine is doesn't matter because that's how I choose to live it. The times are changing and those that quickly advance will gain the victor. **** tortoises-- I step on them to keep them from moving.
It's okay from a marketing standpoint, I guess.
Graphics can add a lot to a game. But it's not the polycount you want to take a look at. It's the textures and lighting. Take a look at the models for Mario in Smash Melee and Brawl. Pretty much the same body model, but much, much prettier textures. Take a look at Doom 3. Lighting and shadow. And so on.
Yeah, graphics improving is a good thing. But if it's at the expense of the game, then meh. I'd rather a studio spent time making a game playable than shiny. Yes, of course I'd love a Wii with graphical power to crap all over the 360. But with such a tenuous new bit of hardware, there needs to be another bit of appeal.
But to be honest, for me it's the games. I recently spent two months of my life addicted to a game called Teddy Murder, with 16-colour DOS graphics. I preferred to play that than Marc Ecko's Getting Up, as an example.
I was just putting that polycount thing out there as a catapult to a viewpoint, not anything technical. Of course it's about games, but Nintendo's first party games aren't the only games on the system.
Would I trade what we have now for the exact same thing with better graphics? Of course!
Would I trade better graphics for quick and cheap development costs, an extremely low price and plenty of stock available for launch? Hell no.
It's all about trade-offs, and this time graphics just ain't worth it.
They're always worth it. We'll give them all the time in the world.
One of the main reasons I'll be picking up the Wii is its price. I dont, and wont in the forseeable future, have anything even close to large amounts of disposable income. If it's cost was on par with the 360 or even worse, the PS3, I wouldnt be bale to get it for YEARS to come.
I seem to be the only person who doesn't think that the graphics are sucky. Red Steel looked ****ing fine.
Is it worth it for me as a consumer/gamer? No. I'd be more than happy to pay more money for the Wii system and its games to get better graphics in return, and what I've seen from Wii trailers and demos up to this point, I'm anything but visually impressed.
However, is it worth it for me as an up-and-coming console developer? Yes. Thanks to the cheaper cost and easier-to-develop-for PlayStation hardware back in '95, a lot of small developers were able to afford and make games for the system. Many companies got their break thanks to the PlayStation. One of those companies is now a Nintendo faithful, N-Space. Therefore, the Wii presents a similar opportunity. With development costs rising, especially for the 360 and PS3, it's nice to have hardware out there which you don't need (relatively) as much money to make games for.
Plus, it's wise from Nintendo's point of view. They're shooting for extreme accessibility, from both a financial and gameplay standpoint, to expand their user base beyond just "gamers." They're playing to their strategy, and it's only a matter of time before we see whether or not it was a smart move.
They should have done it, after looking at Gears Of War And Assasins Creed its not so cool to go back to Gamecube graphics
[quote=Big Boss][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]Is it worth it for me as a consumer/gamer? No. I'd be more than happy to pay more money for the Wii system and its games to get better graphics in return, and what I've seen from Wii trailers and demos up to this point, I'm anything but visually impressed.[/COLOR][/FONT]
:( I actually thought their visuals were pretty good... for example, the improvement between the GameCube and the Wii was much bigger than the improvement between the XBox and the 360. Heck, I have yet to see an XBox 360 game that looks like it couldn't be played on the original. I cant say much about the PS3 (I've noticed a trend of exaggeration in their *cough* graphics department).
As someone who has played several 360 titles, you end up ignoring the graphics pretty darn quickly. Sure, for the first few minutes you're amazed, but once the game starts moving along, you end up jsut ignoring it.
So for me, gameplay takes importance. Would it be nice to have low cost and great graphics? Sure. Would I trade price for a jillion poly count and every lighting effect possible? Nope.
[quote=Fate][COLOR=skyblue]They're always worth it. We'll give them all the time in the world.[/COLOR]
...said the non-PC gamer. You do realise PCs have kicked console's a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]ses graphics-wise for about 4 years, right?
[quote=Big Boss][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]Plus, it's wise from Nintendo's point of view. They're shooting for extreme accessibility, from both a financial and gameplay standpoint, to expand their user base beyond just "gamers." They're playing to their strategy, and it's only a matter of time before we see whether or not it was a smart move.[/COLOR][/FONT]
That's it right there. When you're catering to the core gamer market graphics are a priority, as they'll often pay pretty much anything. But when you're trying to aim for everyone several things take precedence, such as interface and price. You simply can't have everything, so Nintendo was basically forced to give graphics a back seat if they wanted to follow through with their plans.
Most of you talk about graphics like they make a game, like it's the biggest selling point. Now I don't care how many people dislike it, or think it's overrated, but I have one thing to say: Final Fantasy VII. Try and argue with those sales.
1. Wii's graphics are not bad. At all. Mario Galaxy? Are you kidding me? Those graphics are unbelievable!
2. one of the reasons I may or may not say "360 grpahics arent that good" and "wii graphics are great" is because everyeon was saying how amazing 360 would be and how crappy Wii would look, so it's a thing of perspective ,too.
Here's a comparison of Gamecube and Wii graphics. I think a lot of us are forgetting what GC games actually look like.
[IMG]http://www.australian-postcodes.com/comparwii.jpg[/IMG]
And these aren't even final models.
SSBM was a first generation GC game. You're comparing it to a first-gen Wii game. Not too fair seeing as there will obviously be a difference. Just like there's a difference between new GC games and old GC games. Even the PS2 it doing good now - games like Black look as good as an Xbox game.
Though the difference between Sunshine and Galaxies is not so bad. Though, Sunshine looks like it's been re-saved a few times and horribly, horribly compressed (obviously).
The Mario model from Smash Brawl does appear to have more polygons, and some bump mapping where there was no bump mapping before in addition to his higher-res textures. Link? You need to show his GAMECUBE Twilight Princess model next to the Smash Brawl one for an accurate comparison.
What we really need to do is take a poll of the best looking GC and try and make comparisons. Still its hard to compare
-----------------------------------------------------
Would i trade the Wii for Wii with better graphics, H-E-L-L YES. But do I value game play more? Yes. Graphics matter, But are they as important as companys like sony and Microsoft make them out to be? No.
Give Halo N64 graphics would it still be fun? Yes, because game play makes the games. Graphics just make them look better.
------------------------------------
Think of graphics as women.
Every man wants a nice woman they can relate too. Plus a man wants a woman who looks good too. Most men are miserable if they have a girlfriend who the cant relate too. But most men enjoy being around some one they can relate with.
Now if you can have a woman who you can relate to that is also good looking? Well thats something special ;)
No! The needless focus on graphics has led me away from the other consoles due to their price. Just because SOME people will pay any ridiculous price for a console doesn't mean everyone will, which Nintendo is clearly trying to use to their advantage, and I wouldn't ever want it to change.
I don't see what is so horrible about Wii graphics anyway. They are considerably better than Gamecube's, and are more than ample for what it is used for. I play games for the games, not a pretty, dynamic image.
Precisely my point. As best as technologically possible.
All consoles have drawbacks. I'd rather take the one that plays better games.
Why can't you have next-gen graphics aswell? We've gone over this several times, it's really not that difficult.
IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.
You can't have a new controller, next-gen graphics AND a sub-$200 price point, it's simple fucking mathematics. Nintendo made a choice to target everyone, including the non-gamer. Low price points are more important to EVERYONE than the very best graphics.
I mean Jesus, most of the people complaining don't even realise that PCs have the best graphics of them all, aswell as the highest price-tag. If you want amazingly realistic graphics like THIS:
[IMG]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/705/705664/crysis-20060508022308296.jpg[/IMG]
then ditch your consoles and go buy a PC.
Wait, wasn't one of the main "ZOMG" points about FFVII the fact that it had "really great graphics" for it's time? That along with the music, characters, story and battle system are all reasons people still hype the piece of ****.
[quote=Vampiro]SSBM was a first generation GC game. You're comparing it to a first-gen Wii game. Not too fair seeing as there will obviously be a difference.
Um, what? You can't get fairer than comparing 1st generation GC and Wii games. Yes, GC games got better looking as time went on, but the exact same thing can be said for Wii games.
So a fair comparison to you would be comparing last generation GC games, where developers have had 5 years experience, to 1st generation Wii demos?
[quote=Vampiro]I AM SHOCKED! I did not realise this. Never did such a thought enter into my mind. Not once.
The whole point of this thread, as seen in the title, is whether graphics are worth the increase in the price of the console. I think anyone who read the first post got tipped off to such fact. So, uh, thanks for reminding us about something I'm sure no one forgot.
There are people whining about why they can't get both, or don't understand why a low price point is important. If you understand that there must be a compromise then the post wasn't aimed at you.
[quote=Vamp]GRAW and Oblivion still amaze me. You may not gawk at them anymore, but they play a large subconscious role, in that they envelope you into the world without you ever realising it. The more realistic a game looks, the easier it is to relate to, the easier it is to be immersed in it. Graphics don't just play a visual, physical role, they have a mental impact.
I'm playing FF4 right now, and I'm fairly into it. It may be crappy 16bit (I think, not sure) sprites, but **** if it isnt fun and interesting. And at least its story is long enough to require more than one day of gaming lol oblivion.
Less specular lighting, plz.
shiny brick ftw
Shiny people are the deal-breaker for me.
I mean, PDZ. Wtf.
Chaos Theory wasn't so bad, actually. Less specular lighting than PDZ, for sure. The rag doll was terrible in PDZ. I was scared. :(
Pretty much everything graphical-wise in PDZ was terribly. What were they thinking?
Plastic people is the least of that game's worries. The animation was abysmal, the 64 version had smoother moving characters.
And substantially less polycount. Either PDZ had too many polys on one screen at one time, or the animators made too many polys on each character that were never going to be seen.
I ignore graphics as soon as the game is turned on. Actually come to think of the only attention I give to grapics is if they are down right awful. So I could load Assasins Creed up and just like when I loade Resident Evil4 or Ocarina of Time up, I'll marvel at the graphics a bit then focus on what the gameplay has to offer.
If Wii had graphics superiour to Ps3 and Xbox it would be lovely. But if devlopers are willing to push the Wii's graphical capaiblites just like they would to Ps3 or Xbox than I'm fine with that. For me the main thing is maing use of that controller.
The only time I've ever marvelled at graphics is when I get a new console and crack open a new game. It's mainly 'ooh, water effects!' and then I forget about them.
My opinion basically comes down to not wanting to pay hundreds of dollars extra for graphics which won't even stand out in a matter of months. I say that Nintendo shouldn't go for graphics on par with the other two consoles because it seems like it would alienate more people than it would bring in. You can still enjoy a console if you don't like the graphics, but if you can't afford it, it doesn't matter.
I dont think its worth it to pay hundreds more for prettier games. If the Wii really does debut at less than $200, then being on par with gamecube is fine by me. I love the price more than anything.
Oh, and anyone who says red steel or mario galaxy look great are in denial, and need to reevaluate that decision.
I think Red Steel looks great, and SMG looks better than Sunshine. Not fantastic, though.
Pretty much the major thing that the Wii is straying from is the HD update, correct? If so, that's not a big deal to me and I suppose the price drop is a decent idea. I've played plenty on an HDTV and although I do enjoy it, it isn't at all that common yet like it will be 4 to 5 years from now. I probably won't bother getting another one myself until a couple years from now.
Another problem with such a low price is ignorant buyers taking a glance at the price and taking it as a childish system that is greatly inferior to the 360 and PS3 simply because it is so cheap. That's another worry of mine.
[quote=Vampiro]Which the GC showed is a real possibility.
I think that was more of a result of thinking it's crap aswell. It didn't have the greatest reputation, it was neither the most powerful nor had the most games. People assume that if it's not the best at anything then it's the worst at everything, and the price seemed to confirm that.
If you want a good example of people liking low prices go watch DS kick PSP's ass.
[quote=Vampiro]With the PS3, you're paying for other things like the blu-ray drive.
Which is, of course the HOTTEST item right now.
DVD didn't take off until about 5 years after it's introduction. Blu-Ray is gonna take even longer because you have to buy a new TV aswell. No one's going to see the value of a PS3 other than the very small percentage of tech heads.
I didn't even own a DVD player until a year ago, and that was only because it was unbelievably cheap.