Nintendo Wii Fanboy

Doesn't bother me at all. Let them try with their nub to control while we flail our arms shooting behind us and all over.

Reply

It all depends on how hard the developers want to push the hardware. I haven't seen a game yet that even attempts to push the Wii beyond GameCube visuals. Super Mario Galaxy looks to be the first game that will show us a fraction of what Wii can do.

It does bother me that developers aren't putting more effort into the visuals of Wii games, but it's not a knock on the system in my eyes.

Reply

This happens EVERY generation. It takes time to get good graphics, people. The first games for any console always are succeeded by graphics of future titles. It's happened as far as I can remember. 360, Dreamcast, PSP, DS, etc. The Wii and PS3 don't look to be bucking the trend any time soon.

Reply

Now that's hilarious. Talk about pure stupidity. If a game is written using one specific graphics engine, it's going to look near identical on all platforms whether it be the DS or a Quad Core PC.

Reply

Actually I don't think the argument that it takes time to maximize the graphic on new systems applies to the Wii since it is basically an overclocked Gamecube, which many developers have had years to max out the graphics on. Too me that just seems like a made up fanboy excuse, I am a Nintendo fanboy myself but I don't use that argument to defend the Wii's game graphics, because I don't think its true at all. But of course, I could be wrong. It has happend before :).

Reply

5: The only reasoning for this game's graphics is the simple fact that the developers were too lazy to redo the PSP-optimized graphics for the Wii version.

Reply

5: The only reasoning for this game's graphics is the simple fact that the developers were too lazy to redo the PSP-optimized graphics for the Wii version.

Reply

Developers didn't try to optimize the GameCube and therefore are further behind Wii. That's the fault of saying it should be easy to delve into Wii. Not enough developers pushed the envelope of the GameCube and the Wii is stronger than it.

Reply

@ hvnlysoldr

i agree

While 3rd parties always seemed to take advantage of the Xbox's graphical advantages for multiplatform games, what GC got was the same as the PS2's version

Fact of the matter is, i think 3rd parties still expect sales on the Wii to be poor, so they just slap on some waggle to thier PS2/PSP game to make some quick bucks

This is sad, coming from SEGA, who have made the most graphically impressive game on the Wii thus far (Sonic and the Secret Rings, seriously beautiful)

Reply

OMFG!!! LIKE NO WAY...
oh wait... dont they cost almost the same amount of money?

So what if one is portable, according to sales data it is not really that great.

Reply

That Wii picture looks like PS1 graphics.

In the Wii's defense, and I think is the point you were making in your post, the ability to have beautiful graphics doesn't mean the developer is forced to implement them. They could make a shitty looking game for the PC, X360 or PS3, too, if they wanted.

Reply

this doesn't bother me at all because I play my wii on a 50 inch tv not on a 4 inch handheld made for wienie faced girlie-men

Reply

@12: "this doesn't bother me at all because I play my wii on a 50 inch tv not on a 4 inch handheld made for wienie faced girlie-men"

Uhh, that's exactly why this should bother you. An engine built for a 4" screen is being stretched to your 50" TV. Try setting a 30x20 pixel bmp as your Windows wallpaper (stretched) and tell me how great it looks.

This is just plain lazy and I'm disappointed in Sega.

Reply

I'm not worried. While the game may suffer from low poly counts and less-than-awe-inspiring shader effects, it'll still look better than the PSP version because it'll be outputting in higher resolution.

Reply

Ugh Nintendo fanboys...calm down. The PSP is not at all a bad console, nor is the Wii.

2: "this doesn't bother me at all because I play my wii on a 50 inch tv not on a 4 inch handheld made for wienie faced girlie-men"

your a dumbass. I bet you wouldn't say the same about 2 3" screens on a DS, right? *rolls eyes*


"Developers didn't try to optimize the GameCube and therefore are further behind Wii. That's the fault of saying it should be easy to delve into Wii. Not enough developers pushed the envelope of the GameCube and the Wii is stronger than it."

If capcom developed on the Wii it would be a different story. Look at Re4. It pushed the GCN. TP did as well.

"1. Doesn't bother me at all. Let them try with their nub to control while we flail our arms shooting behind us and all over."

Can you read? Idiot, its a PSP DESIGNED Game, naturally the PSP one will be more fluid to control.

I really hate this place all of a sudden. Its people like you that give Nintendo fans a bad name, your ignorant, arrogant, and a have a onesided opinion.

Reply

LOL. That is just sad.

Reply

This is the thing that bugs me about Wii developers, and seeing these graphics the other day just pushed the donkey over the edge. It just seems to me that developers are using the "Graphics don't matter" as an exuse to not implement good graphics. Save for a few possible effects on TP, there really hasn't been any games that have pushed graphics that couldn't be done on the Gamecube.

For those saying that devs just haven't gotten used to the Wii, that's no exuse. Developers aren't even trying. You wouldn't see N64 graphics on the GCN, and you wouldn't see PS2 graphics on the PS3. If you did you would say that the dev was being lazy, so why is it any different for the Wii?

Reply

>> This happens EVERY generation. It takes time to get
>> good graphics, people.

Really?

Which SNES games had NES quality graphics? None!

Which N64 game had SNES quality graphics? None!

Which GCN game had N64 quality graphics? Animal Crossing is the only one I can think of.

Which GBA game had GB Color quality graphics? I don't think any of the professional first gen titles had graphics that bad and I think even the el-cheapo Nick-tie in titles of today look better than GBC games.


It's the norm for first generation titles to look worse than last generation titles of the same console, but first generation titles of the new console always looked better than the last gen titles of the old console. That is, until the Wii came along. Graphically, the Wii is barely more powerful than a Gamecube yet its titles look worse than first generation GCN games! Personally, I'm getting kinda tired of waiting for games to get past this Dreamcast-Early Gamecube level of quality.

Reply

I love it when nintendo fanboys (The really hardcore ones, not the middle of the road ones like me) constantly think that there is some light at the end of the tunnel for the Wii in terms of graphics. I hate to say this, because I'm just as put-out by this information as everyone else, but the Wii's graphics just aren't going to improve very drastically throughout the lifespan of the console. 480p is 480p, there is no getting around that. And while amazing games have been made in 480p (such as Okami etc) they really did hit the ceiling as far as how good a 480p game can look. At this point, if there is anything left in the Wii's hardware that has yet to be realized, it's the additional number crunching power of the improved CPU (Compared to the Gamecube). So far, I haven't seen any Wii games that I thought couldn't have been on the Gamecube (sans the control scheme). In contrast, when the 360 and the PS3 launched, you could immediately see that there was no way in hell the games could have been done on the PS2 and Xbox 1 respectively.

It makes me sad =/

Reply

While I don't consider myself a hardcore Nintendo fan, I have to disagree with the above post, mainly the "480p is 480p" part. Take a look at a DVD, and then at a game in 480p. The DVD is running at the same resolution, but has a ton more detail than a videogame. While it'll never look anywhere near as good as the PS3 or 360, I think there's quite a bit of room for improvement, which will only happen when developers stop being lazy. The Wii doesn't have as great shader/ lighting effects as the original Xbox from what I've read, so it seems to me that besides developers needing to optimize for what the Wii does have, and not use PSP engines (or PS2. I don't understand why a game that was designed for the GC as well would use the PS2 version as a base for the Wii version, but its happening often) the best way to improve the graphics would be the same exact things that worked in the past, before the HD era: increase polygons, and increase texture resolution. The GC looked great in games like RE4, and we now have 3-6 times the space (under the assumption that there might be two disc Wii games, or dual layer Wii games). Filling it with higher resolution textures would be a good start at improving the quality; even Zelda had problems with low-res textures at parts.

Reply

The pic is misleading. Our Wii Fanboy bloggers scaled it a little. The actual picture can be found here:
http://www.seganerds.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/aliensyndromecompared2.jpg

Reply

Everyone knows the Wii has more graphical power than the PS3 and Xbox360 combined, if only it was put to full use. I wish these developers would stop being so damn lazy!

Reply

Tom:We're all aware of the power that the Wii has, but just because it's not that powerful doesn't mean it can't do better than what it's doing. The Wii is much more powerful than the GCN, and yet all we see are sub-par GCN graphics. So there's no need to make us look like we're complaining that we're not getting 360 level graphics, because that's not what we're doing. We're complaining that we have yet to get Wii level graphics.

Reply

22:
I totally agree!

But to be serious its not fair to compare the difference of Gamcube -> Wii with the Xbox/PS in terms of weather or not the developers can use the full potential in the beginning of a cycle. Since in both the case of Playstation and Xbox there were MAJOR changes in hardware, completely different architecture, new graphic card suppliers and a few more cores to work with. This is NOT the case with the Wii were the hardware is basically the same as a Gamcube weather you refuse to admit it or not. So the improvement of the graphic in over the Wii's life cycle will probably not even be comparable with the that of Xbox 360 and Playstation 2, sorry guys.

Reply

@shadow

I'm serious. The Wii really can do graphics better than those of the Xbox360 or PS3... it just can't do them in HD that's all, but that's okay, because if it doesn't have to do as high a resolution then it can display more polygons and better SD textures. You say you want Wii-level graphics... well I think you'll get them eventually and, furthermore, they'll be better than you were expecting.

Reply

@Tom
What kind of reasoning is that?! Its like saying that an old Amiga will render faster than my MacBook Pro if it gets to render a 1x1 pixel and my computer has to render in like 4k resolution.
And both the Xbox 360 and PS3 will probably easily outperform the Wii even when running at full HD.

Reply

@Timmy: "What kind of reasoning is that?!"

It's my kind of reasoning: the CORRECT kind of reasoning. If you're still skeptical then I'd just like to point out how you just proved me right with your example, even though you didn't mean to. Thanks.

Reply

@Tom
Haha, I thought you were joking when you said the Wii had more graphical power than the PS3 and Xbox 360 together since it was such a totally extreme statement, so I was totally ironic when I said I agreed with you because I found your comment quite funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Reply

I am firmly against Irony. I only believe in Truthiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Wii iz teh uber pwnage!

Reply

@Tom (and maybe shadow a bit)
while we're talking about being reasonable.
First of all, if you look at the games provided for wii, you will surely notice that they are not there to show off with good graphics. No, instead nintendo focused on gameplay, they brought us a console with a new level of interactiveness. and if the game is good, there is no need to throw in some heavy hardware to open up for games with higher graphics.
Ok but there is fact involved in all of this, and if you knew them all you, maybe you would have re-considered your "reasoning".

first of all the wii uses 88Mb RAM and a 730 MHz powerPC.
this aint a spec to boast with when graphics come into the picture.
Take for instance, the PS3. It has 500 Mb RAM seriously outnumbering the wii and on top of that a 3,2 GHz processor, with 7 cores and a Nvidia RSX @550MHz GPU. Now that spec is more likely to give you a console wich will be able to run high graphic quality games on.

so, in the end... wii's graphics wont get any better, but the games that is released for the wii, will still be good without having to beat the PS3 or the Xbox360 with good graphics, because the developers of wii games aint lazy, they just know the limits better than you.

and to put a comment in for the original subject of the thread;
It's the same game on two different consoles, you don't remake a game just because it's going to be use on a different console :P that would just be bad for the paycheck:P

Reply

@Tom
And while there is a trend to paste Wiki-links here i guess i'll post one for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owned

Reply

I'm sorry, this is rediculous. The PSP may be the most powerful handheld out there, but it's still a handheld. A fairly old one, in fact. It looks pretty good for a PSP game, but upscaling it and playing it in 480i is hardly a next-gen improvement.

The Wii will not get more powerful, we know that. Saying the "wii's graphics wont get any better" makes no sense since the Wii technically does not have any graphics. It's how the developers use them, not the system. Although it isn't as powerful as the 360 or PS3, even in SD, it isn't such a huge leap behind that it should be put at the PSP's level. It is still a powerful machine, much more so than the XBox(forget clock numbers, the XBox's efficiency was terrible and wasn't gaming-optimized, but PC optimized). The Wii has games that look like next-gen games. Hell, even Red Steel makes the cut in certain areas(it's a mixed bag overall, though). Super Mario Galaxy looks incredible, absolutely incredible. Is it 360 or PS3 level? No. However, it is still beautiful and a large leap ahead of the XBox. Why should I deal with PSP-level graphics? It hardly looks better. Why can Nintendo do something amazing with games such as Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros Brawl(even the early trailers for both looked very nice), yet these guys are hardly pulling off Dreamcast graphics. In fact, Sonic Adventure looked better.

The sad thing is, SEGA stated that they would use this new engine that works on multiple systems(including the PSP and Wii) without having to simply upscale the weaker consoles textures and models for the more powerful console's version.

Reply

I want to clarify that my first post was meant to be sarcastic and funny. In that I believe the wiimote and nunchuk control scheme would be better than what the PSP designed control scheme on the basis of motion controls and not ridiculing that the PSP control is assumed worst.

To clarify my second post in that although Capcom put an amazing game that is RE4 on GC and that it ran better than its PS2 port has to be put in context to all the ports and shovelware that was associated with GC and Wii. Capcom did develop a great GC game but how about all the other companies? How many didn't even bother making a port? How many of those are now trying to cash in on Wii?

The GC had decent graphics and could be pushed harder than it ever was. The Wii is better still but has not been pushed. Nintendo never really said graphics don't matter. They said the graphics are good enough. That the next evolution has to be in gameplay. If I can play a game and it is fun that is all it has to be. If that game needs super realistic graphics to be fun it should. If it needs cel-shading and wacky humor that's OK.

Reply

@Tjim

All them hertz and bytes are fine and dandy, but it still doesn't explain why Super Mario Galaxy actually looks BETTER than Gears of War.

Now it is YOU who is Owned (or Pwned as the kids are sayin' these days), and I therefore rest my case... unless you unwisely keep arguing.

Reply

This is a hoax. You can see the real image here.
I apologize if this is multi post, for some reason it's not showing up so I tried again.....twice.

http://alinktothefuture.com/2007/03/22/say-it-aint-so/

Reply

I think this game looks really fun. That's all that really matters to me. I tell you - I keep my Genesis hooked up just so me and my friend of 15 years can get together and play "Zombies Ate My Neighbors". I suppose if we ever get that on the VC, I will finally get to retire my worn Genesis once and for all.

Point is we don't play it for the graphics, man.

Reply

Backing away from the troll hole.

Reply

This is not a hoax. Why would a Sega site have any favortism for one console over the other? We're a Sega site, people.

You can see the original images from Sega here:

PSP version
ftp://segapr.segaamerica.com/SEGA_GAMES/Alien%20Syndrome/Screenshots/PSP/AS_Screenshots_Emb021407_PSP/AS_PSPscreens_Emb021407_07.jpg

Wii version
ftp://segapr.segaamerica.com/SEGA_GAMES/Alien%20Syndrome/Screenshots/Wii/AS_Screens_Emb032007/screenshot_004.jpg

Reply

Doesn't really bother me since we knew when buying a Wii that we chose a console that doesn't have good graphics. And so I think it doesn't matter if they're not the best the Wii can do since it's not gonna be 360/PS3 graphics anyway.

Reply

@Tom
You just changed the subject, but anyways;
Are you kidding? Super mario galaxy looks nicer than gears of war?
Thats just stupid :P Gears of war uses high anti aliasing and heavy displacement/normal maps, and the textures are just stunning.
Wii doesnt even have close to the power to render such heavy images.
just compare gears of war and super mario galaxy here, and you'll see that the difference is more than obvious...

Super mario
http://www.level7.nu/cache/cimg/LVL/2007/03/09/18/2e7fc68d28dfd1a834182ae008d49004.jpg

Gears of war
http://files.xboxic.com/xbox-360/gears-of-war/gears-of-war-e3-2006-pic3.jpg

now give me a good comeback or i will consider myself the winner in this argument :P

Reply

*Sam: "At this point, if there is anything left in the Wii's hardware that has yet to be realized, it's the additional number crunching power of the improved CPU (Compared to the Gamecube)."

Mind the Mhz Myth. I can assure you that the chip isn't as powerful as you think it is. But then, how much CPU power do you need to draw Miis? The games we're seeing on the Wii right now don't even compare to the engine complexity of PS2 games.

*Joe: "Take a look at a DVD, and then at a game in 480p. The DVD is running at the same resolution, but has a ton more detail than a videogame. While it'll never look anywhere near as good as the PS3 or 360, I think there's quite a bit of room for improvement, which will only happen when developers stop being lazy."

DVD images are carefully scaled and processed for 480 resolution, which includes sharpening and anti-aliasing. The Wii does not do this... by a longshot.

My biggest beef with the Wii is not the lack of polygon power or HD resolution, but the fact that the Wii has terrible image quality. There's a difference between rendering sheer quantity, and rendering WELL. There's NO excuse whatsoever for 2006 technology to lack anti-aliasing as standard, regardless of the price range. Anti-aliasing technology has improved A LOT since the Gamecube days and doesn't result in the major framerate hit that encourages developers to ignore the feature entirely.

Unfortunately, you have to actually make a new architecture to take advantage of newer, more efficient technology. Overclocking old hardware doesn't cut it.

Nintendo is rediculously cheap this generation, and the community applaudes them for it.

*Tom: "I wish these developers would stop being so damn lazy!"

Every criticism of the Wii's graphics is met with a battle cry of "graphics don't matter." Why should developers bother if it just costs money, and they won't be rewarded for their efforts?

Face it, the graphics are going to suck for a while.

*Tom: "I'm serious. The Wii really can do graphics better than those of the Xbox360 or PS3... it just can't do them in HD that's all"

BAHAHA! You obviously don't know anything about geometry setup engines. But then, Wii is for casual gamers that don't know better. With the right marketting campaign and a motion-sensor, the Atari Jaguar could probably be re-launched (more powerful than Playstation, blah blah blah...)

*ReCiPe-FoR-HaTe: "The Wii will not get more powerful, we know that."

What's sad is that since the programming interfaces for the Wii are identical to the Gamecube, developers already know how to push the system to its limits. They don't have to learn anything new. If the games don't look good even at system launch, either the system is out of steam, or the developers don't care.

Even Nintendo's 1st-party games don't look that great (blurry textures and aliasing all over the place).

*Zan: "Doesn't really bother me since we knew when buying a Wii that we chose a console that doesn't have good graphics."

So, are you happy with the $250 price point? I remember fanboys rejoicing all over the world at the $150 and $170 rumors. How about all those extra controllers and Wii gloves, and $30 cables?

Honestly. You people are happy with anyting. Everything about Nintendo's campaign has been about getting people to lower their standards under the guise of "casual" gaming. If the Wii really did cost $150, I wouldn't be so hard on it. Really.

An extra $10 of hardware would've done wonders, and I don't think anyone would've objected to a much more powerful Wii at $260.

Think about it. Let's suppose there was a premium version of the Wii with half the power of the XBox 360, and cost $300. Would ANYONE have bought the weaker $250 version? I don't think so... because graphics don't matter, right?

Reply

"This is not a hoax. Why would a Sega site have any favortism for one console over the other? We're a Sega site, people."

That can't be a PSP image. The resolution is too high.

Reply

No. But what really does bother me is when people make graphical comparisons between two games with completely different scenes in the screen shots.

Reply

Hm. The way people are acting, one would think the graphical ability of the Wii is somewhere near the ability of the N64. Only a twit would think that, the graphics we've seen so far aren't THAT bad. Jeez, it's not the end of the world that the games are not amazing graphically.

Though, it's a little odd that they're making the same game for PSP and Wii, I don't mind. More games. :]

And I do believe the Wii can have games as beautiful as something on the PS3 or 360. By beautiful, I don't really mean photo-realistic. I can say with all honesty that I believe that Okami is many times more pretty than Gears of War. It's all in the hands of the developers.

Reply

I think it's worth pointing out the difference between a good looking game, and demanding graphics, since one of them doesn't necessarily mean the other.
For example, in my opinion Wario Ware is a very good looking game, not because of the graphics is advanced, but because I think the graphic theme is just excellent, and yet, far from demanding.

So I do understand how people can compare Mario Galaxy with Gears of War in terms of "good looks" but seriously, don't even pretend to think that Wii is able to run Gears of War just because Mario Galaxy "looks better" in your opinion.

Such claim is just plain stupid, I mean, compare the graphics between the games and find out for your self: Do you notice any difference in polycount, shadows, texture quality, particle effects, and physics too by the way? If you can't tell the difference I seriously suggest you go get some help.

Reply

It does bother me that people are paying full price for these ports. Nintendo and its 3rd parties are laughing all the way to the bank. If the game looks identical to a PSP version, then it should be priced so. That game should cost $29 at most. Only original Wii titles should be priced at $49.

Reply

@Tjim
That GoW image is from a cutscene, which are optimized to look better than the graphics that display while actually playing. Your pro-Gears of War rhetoric is obviously an unfortunate side effect of your rampant 360-fanboyism. It's sad really. I have just crushed your argument like a completely realistic-looking thwomp. Case closed.

@Burnt Meatloaf: "You obviously don't know anything about geometry setup engines."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I actually built my first geometry setup engine when I was only 9 years old and with only a paperclip, some a.b.c gum, and plenty of gusto.

Reply

@Tom
Seriously, you must be joking? Or are you like 15 years old, or just plain stupid perhaps?
Here you have an ingame screenshot of Gears of War to compare with, so I guess the argument isn't "completely crushed" just because someone showed a cutscene screenshot.
You obviously doesn't seem to know anything at all about computer hardware or 3D graphics at all. As mentioned before I really hope you are joking, and if not I feel sorry for you.

http://www.bdgamers.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/s_chainsawgrunt_005.jpg

Reply

No offence against 15 year-olds ofcourse :).

Reply

Please see my previous statements regarding Truthiness. My opinions are so strong I will not allow facts to get in the way. Look, point is: Mario Galaxy looks better than Gears of War. End of story.

Reply