Loads of people, especially Nintendo haters, have been questioning the quality of the Wii graphics. French site, NGCFrance, has put up 13 sets of images from games featured on the GameCube and Wii one after the other to compare the difference, if any.
We wouldn't completely trust these screens, fellow Wii fanboys/gals. We aren't saying that the site intentionally altered screens to try and make a negative point nor that the pictures are wrong due to our Nintendo fandom, we are just saying to look with an open mind. We especially love the Fire Emblem comparison. Magic blast vs. magic blast. Sweet.
On a lighter note, Google translator is teh awesome. Check out what a Nintendo Fanboy from France had to say in Nintendo's defense:
me yesterday I played there the mgs and DIFFERENCE EAST MUCH CLEARER than that!!!!!!!! because laWii same on a screen of 120cm reacted very well and remains super beautiful!! and sonic be superb!!! not no concern it above Wii will be more beautiful, more powerful and heuresement!! ^^ zelda tp pouwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwa!!! brilliant comamdes!!!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-02-2006 @ 9:25AM
Nushio said...
Thats one hell of a translation!
There it is. They no longer are using "gamecube graphix" and anyone who says that is as dumb as G. W. Bush...
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 9:41AM
Folk said...
I can't understand which quality of graphics without looking on the game in motion. It's wrong. I can't accept this images. Better show some video motion
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 9:42AM
Sherlock said...
You have to remember processing ability also means larger draw distances and amount of on-screen information. I watched a new Zelda trailer this morning and there is one point when there are about 25 skeleton enemies coming at Link. I think that Zelda looks better than RE4 which was probably the best looking Gamecube game.
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 9:53AM
Dignan17 said...
What's with all the jaggies? Did someone forget to turn on the anti-aliasing on their Wii or something?
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 10:00AM
Ryan said...
A lot of gamers believe graphics are nice and all, but gameplay is the thing. Pirates! by Sid Meier is no graphical wonder, but it's got intriguing gameplay.
Sometimes you hit a grand slam with a game like WoW or Ninja Gaiden where the graphics are great and so is gameplay.
The point is, do graphics really matter? To a certain point, yes. But gameplay is the thing that draws me to games. The PS3 and Xbox360 look to have a few gems, but the only games I've gotten really excited about playing (Zelda, Elebits, Excite Truck, and the VC) are on the Wii.
Graphics are important, but shouldn't gamers be more worried about gaming than looking at the pretty pictures on the magic box?
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 10:13AM
WiiBoy2000 said...
@4... Wii doesnt do AA; which is very surprising since they only have to AA a 480p frame.
And, besides, you guys dont care about graphics (keep repeating that to yourself).
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 12:30PM
Tom said...
I have noticed textures look a lot crisper on the Wii. Just look at Mario in Sunshine vs. Galaxy.
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 12:35PM
Dave said...
Graphics are definitely important, but not as important as game play. I think that these screens are intended to look bad. Somebody is trying to prove that the wii's graphics suck. Right, they don't look nearly as good as the 360, and certainly not even close to the PS3. However, they look better than gamecube/xbox/ps2. am I right? Besides, the wii isn't high def anyway, so it will look sweet on a standard def TV.
I'm buying a wii, try and stop me.
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 1:47PM
Boyd said...
Actually, the Fire Emblem comparison from the Cube is Nephenee. IE, no magic there. PWNED!
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 5:51PM
RageOverdose said...
WiiBoy2000:
Gamecube had sub-pixel AA, so the Wii probably has the same or a bit better(I'm banking on same). That's why some of the GCN and Xbox games weren't as jaggy as the PS2 ones, at least that's what I noticed (PS2 had no AA, GCN had sub-pixel which is less than FSAA, and Xbox had FSAA).
Still, these images were too jaggy, but I noticed substancial differences in graphics. I've been telling people this over and over, you can't look at Mario Sunshine or Pokemon Battle Revolution in action and say they are GCN quality games visually, you just can't (unless you're in denial). One beef though is CoD3, because I can't seem to find a screen that isn't just a bad shot or is jaggy beyond reason.
Twighlight Princess, though, is only being showcased with GCN graphics, and since that game kills last-gen, Wii has potential. Still, won't be Gears of War, but good.
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 6:07PM
Joseph said...
Graphics are very important to me, but it isnt everything. Wii promises new gameplay, and thats all i want and care about
Reply
11-02-2006 @ 6:12PM
anon said...
THAT'S SO STUPID >_< They pick Wii images that are heavily pixalated or whatever (too sharp-like the PS2 images). If you rember, look at DS images ppl take-they look like @#$#@ but when you play it, it's a different story.
Reply
11-03-2006 @ 7:01AM
Burnt Meatloaf said...
It's nice to know that Moore's Law still applies to game consoles, huh? Especially after 6 years.
Anti-aliasing is a must. More polygons won't affect gameplay, but visual quality does. A $30 PC video card can do good AA at these resolutions, so Nintendo has no excuse.
But then, why make excuses when fanboys who don't understand technology will do it for you?
*anon: "THAT'S SO STUPID >_< They pick Wii images that are heavily pixalated or whatever (too sharp-like the PS2 images)."
These are probably A/V captures. If so, this is as real as it gets. The reason the images are pixelated is because AA is not free on the Wii, so many developers elect not to use it at all, like on Gamecube.
Reply
11-03-2006 @ 11:12AM
iveo said...
I have a 50" HDTV and gamecube looks AWSOME on it. If Wii looks just as good if not better ill be extatic!
15D 13H 42M /paces
Reply