Man, this looks two times better.
Xbox:
[IMG]http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/652/652477/far-cry-instincts-20050920061603211.jpg[/IMG]
Wii:
[IMG]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/733/733951/far-cry-vengeance-20060921083020096.jpg[/IMG]
... so terrible I can't help but laugh.
Shocking. Absolutely shocking.
EDIT: Wierd really because UBI managed to get Double Agent looking good.
EDIT 2: It's probably early in graphic devleopment still. I mean UBI got SP and Rayman looking nice so why not this? Elebits looked turd early on but now it's improved. I'm giving it time.
I like how the dev team behind this is saying Wii is more powerful than Xbox whilst giving us this awful shots. Okay, fair enough maybe Wii isn't Direct X TM or Pixel Shader TM compatible, but Jesus, what does that have to do with polygon count? Gamecube pushed more polygons than Xbox did for ***'s sake.
Yeah, this looks like arse right now.
To be fair, the only graphical advantages Xbox had over GCN were speculars and shading - Both of which Wii supports. Just check out any Mario Galaxy video.
Yhe it's launch which is why I find it even wierder. Spliner adn Rayman are launch too but dont look like wank. Red Steel and Metroid so examples of FPS Wii games looking good too. Well they got about 2 months so its possible.
If they don't fix anything else, AT LEAST fix the HUD. Ugliest HUD I've ever seen, I think. But yeah, SC: DA looks fantastic, but it's games like these that are completely unacceptable. If you're not going to try, don't even bother.
This must be a joke. I'd expect better of the Dreamcast.
Im sure in month we'll see new shots in a topic saying
"FARCRY LOOKS BETTER"
When I will say:
No **** sherlock, maybe they were think about adapting the controlls before the graphics and then they smoothed it out?
And then we'll all get on with our lives.
The end.
Wouldn't it make sense to not release ****ty images then?
More images in all their glory:
[IMG]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/733/733951/far-cry-vengeance-20060921083022237.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/733/733951/far-cry-vengeance-20060921083023049.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/733/733951/far-cry-vengeance-20060921083023893.jpg[/IMG]
First one doesn't look QUITE so bad.
Is Ubisoft REALLY developing this??
In the long run, as long as it's an FPS that I can use the Wiimote with, the graphics can be as crappy as they want. I don't think FPSs will ever get old on this system.
Good ***, why did they make the HUD different between the two versions? Wii's is terrible.
Im I the only who thinks the could improve upon the graphics before release?
It looks like when I run it on my 5200 FX. Geeze. I really hope this improves because I really want to play this with the wiimote.
Red Steel subpar? Looks pretty fine to me.
[quote=Vampiro]No, it will obviously improve. But not by enough to make it look decent. The point is, they're releasing images of a big title... yet the images are horrendous. It's a stupid business move and reflects badly on everyone.
I think I'll wait for Metroid. Apparently you need to be first-party or have spent a lot of time with the console to make it look any good, because so far, Red Steel looks subpar, and FC, well, yeah.
Technically speaking, there's nothing wrong with the shots, it's on par with the Xbox version. The only thing missing is water effects, and we all know that Gamecube could do them. Now it's just a case of improving textures, and that's all that's really wrong with it. If it weren't for the jungle in the distance and the grass sprites it'd look great.
I think it looks fantastic. :/
... what? You're being srcastic, right; you did see the Xbox comparison shots, right? I realise it will probably, eventually, look better, but I can't see how anyone would use the word "fantastic" to describe those screen shots. Decent, or good, maybe. Maybe. But they're hell of a long way away from fantastic. MGS3 and Ninja Gaiden look fantastic. This game does not.
I thought we were still talking about Red Steel. :(
Ok good, because at first I thought you were talking about Far Cry.
From the latest screens at IGN, Red Steel does look like it's shaping up pretty nicely.
[url="http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/732/732736/red-steel-20060914092813688.jpg"]Image 1[/url]
[url="http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/732/732736/red-steel-20060914092819829.jpg"]Image 2[/url]
I can see Red Steel being a very good game but not the next Goldeneye (or for a more recent example Halo).
That first image makes it look ****. It looks like the enemy is paper thin and stuck on to the image.
[quote=Vampiro]If it weren't for everything I can see in every image, it would look great. Yes.
Everything apart from the water and the trees in the distance is on par with the Xbox version. We know Wii has more, better RAM than Xbox has, and we know Gamecube could do amazing water.
Seriously, technically speaking there's nothing wrong with the shots. It's all down to artists.
[quote=Vampiro]Last few posts above yours jumped back and forth, so I thought you were talking about Far Cry. Still, Red Steel does NOT look fantastic.
Red Steel has great lighting, polygon counts, textures and effects. The ONLY reason people think it looks so bad is because they've washed all the colour out (desaturated) for artistic effect, and to put emphasis on the neon lighting.
Uh, well people usually can't tell technically superior graphics from their ass.
But okay, I'd like you to point out what's wrong with the shots other than a missing water effect and some dodgy textures. Go for it.
Man, this looks two times better.
The Xbox shots posted so far are actually dev shot, mind. The real game doesn't look anywhere near as good.
The main thing really is those blurry little grass sprites and those ugly tree textures that look like solid blocks. It's an art direction thing. I expect the game to look much better at launch, especially if it's running at 30 FPS.
I thought Red Steel enimies looked ok. Typical Yakuza stereo types right? :(
Oh, what I meant was that they weren't blended into the world. Like you could still see the outline from the game they were cut from... not that they didn't actually belong (and I actually had to think for a minute or two to remember why I was shooting soldiers in Far Cry)
Then what the **** happened?
Perhaps someone accidentally released early dev shots to the press? Who knows.
All I was able to get from that was Wii-exclusive levels and Multiplayer.
******* foreign languages.
Ahh, that looks much better.
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get Far Cry Vengeance now. Best controls, most levels, great graphics.
EDIT: "Players: 1-7" the hell?
From what I can gather from my crap german: Based on the Xbox version, new levels, multiplayer modes, vehicles and ****.
The game looks better now, Im guessing that the pics vamp found were a fluke by them. Now their at the level they should be.
Ah, wow, big improvement. Still, it's the same ****ing game they've released four or more times now. I'd need more than new controls and new stages to make me want to play it... for the fifth time.
If they haven't played Far Cry on the PC, or Instincts on the PS2, or Instincts and Evolution on the Xbox, or Predator on the 360, I highly doubt they'll play Vengeance on the Wii. Obviously some will buy it, but not many. You can only whore out the same game so many times. Plus, I was talking about me personally.
Far Cry never came out on PS2, the GC and PS2 versions were cancelled. At least half of the gaming market don't own either an Xbox or a PC powerful enough to run Far Cry. The vast majority of 360 owners right now are Xbox fans.
If there really were few people left who haven't tried Far Cry then why do you think Ubisoft would be making a Wii exclusive version in the first place?
Now those are much better im probobly going to buy it because i never played any of the other ones.the old screens looked like n64 golden eye graphics.
Actually on second thought those mag screens still look bad.
[quote=Vampiro]Yes.
And: "Plus, I was talking about me personally."
yeah.
Wasn't a yes or no question.
I was just answering the first part of your post, because it wasn't talking about just you personally.
Except the Wii can do better graphics than that. That's the point. it's not "BUT IT'S THE CONTROLLER THAT MATTERS" it's the fact that those screens were beyong terrbile.
The mga images are actually the same quality as the OP ones. Look closely and they still have the same blandness. :(
I have a better eye for graphics than you, shush.
k, don't know how much this matters, but I'm nearly finished with the game. I would've finished it in one night if I had the time, since I was actually enjoying the little venture. Only a few islands left. I'll probably finish off the game tonight. The graphics are horrible. Textures are so ugly, I could never let a new Wii observer see this. Decent rental, terrible purchase. I like how the nearly the entire game is outdoors and the whole predator mode is kinda fun. It gets better as you progress, like once you're able to do bigger jumps. Jumping up high and shot-gunning the guys in the trees is fun stuff. Melee attacks are superior to Red Steel and so are the environments. The controls are easier, too, but it would have been so much better with enhanced graphics, since the outdoor environments have such potential. Voice work is awful.
Yup. COD3 is the best FPS for Wii as of right now.
as pathetic as that may be.
Call of Duty 3 is the best FPS o the Wii and it is sad because the game is far more superior on the 360. Lack of multiplayer and online play hurts. The controls worked better than Far Cry and Red Steel though. Easy turn around and aiming.