66 replies to this topic

[Julio93]

I don't give a damn if its N64 graphics, cause I'm not a PC elites obsessed with graphics and power.

[Gamejunkie]

I don't give a damn if its N64 graphics, cause I'm not a PC elites obsessed with graphics and power.

You don't have to be a PC elitist obsessed with graphics and power to think graphics and power are important. Sure they are not the be all and all of video games but they are certainly important and anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves. The amount of times I have read people complaining about graphics in this and other forums its actually laughable to think otherwise.

Edited by Gamejunkie, 08 April 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[routerbad]

You don't have to be a PC elitist obsessed with graphics and power to think graphics and power are important. Sure they are not the be all and all of video games but they are certainly important and anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves. The amount of times I have read people complaining about graphics in this and other forums its actually laughable to think otherwise.

Agreed, it may only represent one pillar of game design, but it is important in and of itself, otherwise their would be zero reason to delineate gaming generations, because we'd still be using Atari or Commodore.  One of the easiest enhancements to make to game design through advancements in technology is graphical upgrades or enhancements.  It doesn't make the game, but good graphics or art styles definitely aid in immersion into the content.

[Crispy Bacon]

Graphics won't be an issue for me at all. I think Super Mario Galaxy is beautiful and that's on a system that is slightly more powerful than Gamecube. I tremble in anticipation and utter excitement as to what Nintendo can/will produce on a console like Wii U. I'm also looking forward to what Retro has in store for us.

[Nintyfan86]

I don't give a damn if its N64 graphics, cause I'm not a PC elites obsessed with graphics and power.

 

Interesting that you say that. I am a recovering PC elitist obsessed with graphics and power. Currently, I am using a 47 inch, 1080p TV as a monitor. To my left, a Wii U. To my right, a PC with an AMD 8350 @ 4ghz and 2 7970s. They are not the GHZ Edition cards, just plain Jane launch cards.

 

Now, I was so into maxing every game when I built this thing in February 2012. Still was when I upgraded the processor. I also love Nintendo and wanted a Wii U. So, Let me give an example with Batman AC.  

 

I played through it, almost 100% with DX 11, all the bells and whistles turned up, and used the controller. I also played it on the Wii U. In motion, the graphical difference was not a problem. The resolution difference was not a big deal to me, in fact, I did not even notice. The expansion mission looks like crap on the Wii U for some reason, but the original game does not. Almost like different teams made them.

 

Now, I purchased Crysis 3 recently, played it with a controller as well, at first anyway. Sitting back from the TV, with everything jacked up, was really not as incredible in comparison to, say, CoD BO2 on Wii U. This is in motion, and by this, I mean it like the 360 vs. original Wii situation where it would hurt your eyes to go back to the Wii.

 

Further, I have noticed that, if you are unable to turn a game's graphics to their lowest and enjoy the game at this level, it is really not a good game. It really is all about game play, and, the majority of these games on low still look great.

 

Finally, there is really no need to have 8x AA, 1080p, mega high details, etc. when you are sitting farther away. In motion, you will not notice this stuff as much. You will in screen shot comparisons, but you can't play those. Now, when you are close to a monitor, the AA setting, constant 60fps, and so forth really matters, but a constant 30 at 5 feet away appears to be just as good.

 

Thanks for your consideration.

[routerbad]

Interesting that you say that. I am a recovering PC elitist obsessed with graphics and power. Currently, I am using a 47 inch, 1080p TV as a monitor. To my left, a Wii U. To my right, a PC with an AMD 8350 @ 4ghz and 2 7970s. They are not the GHZ Edition cards, just plain Jane launch cards.

 

Now, I was so into maxing every game when I built this thing in February 2012. Still was when I upgraded the processor. I also love Nintendo and wanted a Wii U. So, Let me give an example with Batman AC.  

 

I played through it, almost 100% with DX 11, all the bells and whistles turned up, and used the controller. I also played it on the Wii U. In motion, the graphical difference was not a problem. The resolution difference was not a big deal to me, in fact, I did not even notice. The expansion mission looks like crap on the Wii U for some reason, but the original game does not. Almost like different teams made them.

 

Now, I purchased Crysis 3 recently, played it with a controller as well, at first anyway. Sitting back from the TV, with everything jacked up, was really not as incredible in comparison to, say, CoD BO2 on Wii U. This is in motion, and by this, I mean it like the 360 vs. original Wii situation where it would hurt your eyes to go back to the Wii.

 

Further, I have noticed that, if you are unable to turn a game's graphics to their lowest and enjoy the game at this level, it is really not a good game. It really is all about game play, and, the majority of these games on low still look great.

 

Finally, there is really no need to have 8x AA, 1080p, mega high details, etc. when you are sitting farther away. In motion, you will not notice this stuff as much. You will in screen shot comparisons, but you can't play those. Now, when you are close to a monitor, the AA setting, constant 60fps, and so forth really matters, but a constant 30 at 5 feet away appears to be just as good.

 

Thanks for your consideration.

Awesome post, thanks.  And as someone who still obsesses about graphics on my PC, when I'm 6 inches away from the screen at a higher resolution and every little detail matters to me, when you are playing the same game at 1080p or even 720p from a distance, the difference is negligible already.  COD BLOPS2 looks the same to me on PC or Wii U when gaming on a TV from a distance, when both are limited to the same resolution and vsync is enabled on the PC to limit to 60FPS (I can't stand seeing my GPU power wasted on extra frames that I can never notice, especially if there is any amount of screen tearing).  When I play on my monitor, though, the difference in detail is a little more clear, not mindblowingly clear, but a little more, even at 1920x1200 with a lot of the bells and whistles enabled.

 

I'm lower specced then you, PhenomII980BE at 3.8GHz and 2 6870's on a 990FX.

[Nintyfan86]

Awesome post, thanks.  And as someone who still obsesses about graphics on my PC, when I'm 6 inches away from the screen at a higher resolution and every little detail matters to me, when you are playing the same game at 1080p or even 720p from a distance, the difference is negligible already.  COD BLOPS2 looks the same to me on PC or Wii U when gaming on a TV from a distance, when both are limited to the same resolution and vsync is enabled on the PC to limit to 60FPS (I can't stand seeing my GPU power wasted on extra frames that I can never notice, especially if there is any amount of screen tearing).  When I play on my monitor, though, the difference in detail is a little more clear, not mindblowingly clear, but a little more, even at 1920x1200 with a lot of the bells and whistles enabled.

 

I'm lower specced then you, PhenomII980BE at 3.8GHz and 2 6870's on a 990FX.

 

Absolutely! From another perspective, we know the PS4 is supposed to have 8gb GDDR5, an 8 core jaguar (mobile) chip, and a mobile version of GCN 2 (possibly the second iteration, which, knowing AMD's refresh cycle, is a lower power consuming version of GCN with added features). The 720 is supposed to follow suit, yet have DDR3 (rumored).

 

Now, the bigger problem for Wii U is the two x86 chips and GPU's that have different architectures for cross development. A huge install base for the Wii U will fix this, and there is no doubt this will happen when the games start flowing. I am guessing that the prices on the new machines will be relatively attractive given the economy, yet publishers will not outright abandon the 360 and PS3. So, we will probably see a tremendous amount of cross development, just not a whole lot of optimization if third party games are not big sellers in Nintendoland.

 

Speaking of which, does anyone know how well NFS: MW U has done since release? Edit: Under 12,000 units. I hope this just tracks some sources. http://www.vgchartz....on-game/Global/

 

Oh, and you got more bang for your buck. I did total overkill with my set up. I would actually trade for the Phenom given the FX's need for Windows 8 to work properly. Intel's death grip doesn't help much, either.

Edited by Nintyfan86, 08 April 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[routerbad]

Absolutely! From another perspective, we know the PS4 is supposed to have 8gb GDDR5, an 8 core jaguar (mobile) chip, and a mobile version of GCN 2 (possibly the second iteration, which, knowing AMD's refresh cycle, is a lower power consuming version of GCN with added features). The 720 is supposed to follow suit, yet have DDR3 (rumored).

 

Now, the bigger problem for Wii U is the two x86 chips and GPU's that have different architectures for cross development. A huge install base for the Wii U will fix this, and there is no doubt this will happen when the games start flowing. I am guessing that the prices on the new machines will be relatively attractive given the economy, yet publishers will not outright abandon the 360 and PS3. So, we will probably see a tremendous amount of cross development, just not a whole lot of optimization if third party games are not big sellers in Nintendoland.

 

Speaking of which, does anyone know how well NFS: MW U has done since release?

 

Oh, and you got more bang for your buck. I did total overkill with my set up. I would actually trade for the Phenom given the FX's need for Windows 8 to work properly. Intel's death grip doesn't help much, either.

Agreed, it will be harder for Sony and Microsoft to lure people away from their older platforms to their newer ones than it will be for Nintendo with some well placed 1st party games as well as some 3rd party games that bring it to graphical parity (mostly) with both of the other next gen consoles.  Most of the people who bought 360s and PS3s bought them in the last two years and spent anywhere from $200 to $400 for their consoles, making another purchase like that within two years will be a hard sell considering all of the games they purchased can no longer be played on the new consoles.

[Goodtwin]

Especially if the major releases are still coming to the 360 and PS3.  If both Call of Duty and Assassins Creed are still on 360 and PS3, what motivation does that give the majority of consumers who purchased the hardware within the last few years. 

[AndyG]

Fixed.

 

 

A lot of wii u graphics will be cartoon graphics anyway which are less difficult to pull off because of repeated textures and not having to do realistic weather effects etc.

 

Zelda windwaker still looks amazing today. Even if the wii u only performs to the same level as 360 and PS3 that is still a huge, huge jump from wii performance which was basically little more than a gamecube going 50% faster. The gamecube gpu was 8 gflops, the wii 12 glfops and the expected performance of the wii u gpu is about 352gflops about a 50% increase over 360 and a better feature set too. The later gpu architecture also requires less cpu resources as well. In gpu terms that's 30x performance over the wii gpu in gflops. Where as the cpu is is a more modest 6-10x increase over wii. High speed video memory has gone up over 10x in capacity and memory available for games has gone up from 24meg to 1GB (40x). Wii u vs PS3/360 is difficult to judge as such different designs and they are superior to wii u in some areas but the jump wii to wii u is absolutely massive. There are brilliant times ahead with regard what Nintendo can achieve with wii u.

 

I'm personally disappointed that the wii u didn't clearly go ahead of ps3 and 360 in all areas though. I feel a better cpu even if it meant sacrificing wii compatibility would have been much better.

Well remember that all the third party titles were most likely ported from the 360/ps3 versions of the game not to mention that devs hadn't really got a proper handle on the new architecture.

[3Dude]

As long as the games push the boundries of what the system can actually do i will always be pleased with the graphics.

Conversly, if a system is ridiculously powerful, but a game doesnt even attempt to push the console, even if it looks better than a game on a weaker looking console, i wont be impressed.

[Goodtwin]

As long as the games push the boundries of what the system can actually do i will always be pleased with the graphics.

Conversly, if a system is ridiculously powerful, but a game doesnt even attempt to push the console, even if it looks better than a game on a weaker looking console, i wont be impressed.

 

 

This has been my stance for a long time.  I gamed exclusively on the Wii last gen, so I obviously understood that I wasnt going to get 360/PS3 level graphics, but it wasnt hard to tell when a developer really tried to make a nice looking game on Wii, and when they didnt try at all.  Obviously Nintendo has some really nice looking games on Wii, but so did Ubisoft.  Red Steel 2 was a great looking game, and Prince of Persia The Fogotten Sands was a really sharp game as well.  Obviously this is in the perspective of Wii graphics, but you could tell the game was built from the ground up for Wii.  This will hold true for Wii U as well.  I get that the PS4 is going to have more grunt, and be able to produce better visuals, but its always obvious with those developers who make the effort and those who dont.  What developers also need to learn is that trying to maintain a certain level of visuals at the expense of framerate is a big no no.  I would rather turn down the graphics a bit and have a nice smooth framerate.  I wish consoles games gave gamers similar options for graphics tuning that PC's do.  If I could turn down a few things to get a solid 60FPS, I would do that in a lot of games. 

[SoldMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

I play games for fun not graphics but yes it is nice to have them but to be honest I was satisfied with last gens graphics, I mean I'm playing Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate at the moment and some people are bashing that game for it's graphics, errr well it is an upscaled Wii game lol, plus I personally think that sometimes simple = stunning/beautiful, I love my games for what they are not what people want them to be. At some point there has to be a limit or it will just be like real life and I think that, that takes all of the fun out of it, some people want better shadows, so what do you walk around in real life saying wow that shadow looks really realistic? lmao F#@K SHADOWS!

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

I play games for fun not graphics but yes it is nice to have them but to be honest I was satisfied with last gens graphics, I mean I'm playing Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate at the moment and some people are bashing that game for it's graphics, errr well it is an upscaled Wii game lol, plus I personally think that sometimes simple = stunning/beautiful, I love my games for what they are not what people want them to be. At some point there has to be a limit or it will just be like real life and I think that, that takes all of the fun out of it, some people want better shadows, so what do you walk around in real life saying wow that shadow looks really realistic? lmao F#@K SHADOWS!

I agree with everything you said, but when I'm looking at a beautiful game world and I see jaggy shadows everywhere, it disappoints me. I mean, we can make this massive world, but when I look at my character's feet I see pixel shadows?

I've been satisfied with graphics last gen. We don't need to improve character models any more, textures only need a slight bump on consoles which we are getting, and draw distance is usually really good. The only thing I want to see is better lighting and shadows.

[routerbad]

I agree with everything you said, but when I'm looking at a beautiful game world and I see jaggy shadows everywhere, it disappoints me. I mean, we can make this massive world, but when I look at my character's feet I see pixel shadows?

I've been satisfied with graphics last gen. We don't need to improve character models any more, textures only need a slight bump on consoles which we are getting, and draw distance is usually really good. The only thing I want to see is better lighting and shadows.

This is the only issue I have with LEGO City, the shadows are not very well done, but they developed using very early prototypes of the devkit, which was not finalized until around May of last year.  The game still looks great everywhere else.

[Socalmuscle]

We know there have been a lot of people questioning the power of the Wii U. we still dont know what this console will be able to achieve in the long term graphics wise. there are some on this forums that believe "initially" there will be nothing the ps4 can do the Wii U couldnt do.i would like to pose a question to the faithful here. we know(as this gen is wrapping up) the shortcomings of games on ps360... texture pop ins, screen tearing, unstable frame rates, sub native resolutions, and lack of anti aliasing/tessellation . lets say in the long run we see games on Wii U with a noticeable bump in graphical quality over ps360(not major just noticeable) NATIVE 720p LOCKED 60fps, no screen tearing, no texture pop ins, with anti aliasing and tesselation... would that be enough for you? in comparision to ps4 and 720 getting Native 1080p maybe 60fps with major in game graphics shown better than ps360(if this is the case)? i know people on many sites have been scratching their heads and crunching numbers trying to figure out what this console is capable of. I always thought if it could run the Zelda HD demo or Unreal 3.9 demo (even though mark rein has denied that demo was of any significance) type graphics maxed out i would be fine with what it can accomplish. what are your guys thoughts?

 

 

Based on one racing game currently available and early alpha glimpses of new Wii U games coming up, we have already seen much more than just "noticeable" upgrades in graphics over the ps360.  

 

As far as being satisfied with graphics, it seemed pretty obvious that the E3 Zelda demo was on the low end.

 

I personally would not be happy at all if Zelda only looked that good.  Skyward Sword looked to really push the wii in many areas.  That E3 demo was basically upgraded Twilight Princess graphics in HD.  High res textures hid the lower polygon count going on there.  They need a Zelda that pushes the Wii U.

 

As far as if the Wii U started raining games looking like the quality of "The Samaritan" demo, then not only would gamers be satisfied but ecstatic, since the PS4 hasn't yet shown graphics on par with that demo either.

 

The PS4 UE4 demo is actually below that demo in terms of graphical quality.

 

What the Wii U has shown up to now has been of slightly better than PS360 quality.  With the exception of NFS.  That is PC quality and more indicative of the next generation nature of the Wii U.

 

Other than that, the general public has been shown some very shoddy clips of one next gen alpha game in development ("X") and a tease of Bayonetta 2, which may or may not push the Wii U graphically.

 

Apart from that, there may be a Metroid game in development, which will surely push some serious pixels on Wii U as well as  new Mario game.  

 

will gamers be satisfied with Wii U graphics?

 

Currently, I would say no.  Simply because of the graphical quality of launch games.  NFS is the lone exception. W

 

While the graphics certainly looks better than PS360 games, it's not "next-gen" difference. More of a slight upgrade.

 

However, it is common knowledge that the Wii U does not yet have games which actually push the new hardware specifically.  Even NFS is simply a game made for certain parameters (ie: old gen consoles) that was then very easy to port the PC VERSION assets of the game to Wii U - though NFS looks like the PC game, it still wasn't built from the ground up to take every advantage of the Wii U.

 

So this question should be revisited later in the year.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 09 April 2013 - 03:37 PM.

[Goodtwin]

Nintendo has traditionally developed their graphics around the strengths of the hardware as well.  The Mario Galaxy games are great examples of leveraging the strengths of the hardware, and ending up with a visually appealing game.  I think developers miss this more often than not.  Right from the get go, know your hardware, know the limitations, and try to avoid those limitations while leveraging the strengths.  When Nintendo was developing the Wii U hardware, they weren't thinking about Battlefield 4, they were thinking about bringing Mario and Zelda into HD.  I truly feel that while some people may not see the Wii U as being a very big jump from the 360/PS3, for Nintendo it allows them to create their IP's with no technical limitations.  When Nintendo showed the demo of Zelda back in 2011, do you think Nintendo is really interested in developing graphics beyond that level?  I personally dont think so.  Nintendo is more focused on creating new gameplay elements and control interfaces than on having the most cutting edge graphics.  Seriously, Nintendo wasnt to far off from maxing out Mario with Mario Galaxy.  Honestly, Mario Galaxy in HD running on the dolphin emulation pretty much nails what I expect from Mario graphics.  Mario is and should remain a cartoon character.  How much more detail can you put into a  turtle or goomba?  The Wii U system performance is set to a level based on what Nintendo's internal developers wanted to be able to create with their own IP's in HD.  No matter how powerful the hardware, if a developer ignores the limitations of the hardware, and try to force more than the hardware can handle, its going to turn out like crap.   

[Nintyfan86]

Nintendo has traditionally developed their graphics around the strengths of the hardware as well.  The Mario Galaxy games are great examples of leveraging the strengths of the hardware, and ending up with a visually appealing game.  I think developers miss this more often than not.  Right from the get go, know your hardware, know the limitations, and try to avoid those limitations while leveraging the strengths.  When Nintendo was developing the Wii U hardware, they weren't thinking about Battlefield 4, they were thinking about bringing Mario and Zelda into HD.  I truly feel that while some people may not see the Wii U as being a very big jump from the 360/PS3, for Nintendo it allows them to create their IP's with no technical limitations.  When Nintendo showed the demo of Zelda back in 2011, do you think Nintendo is really interested in developing graphics beyond that level?  I personally dont think so.  Nintendo is more focused on creating new gameplay elements and control interfaces than on having the most cutting edge graphics.  Seriously, Nintendo wasnt to far off from maxing out Mario with Mario Galaxy.  Honestly, Mario Galaxy in HD running on the dolphin emulation pretty much nails what I expect from Mario graphics.  Mario is and should remain a cartoon character.  How much more detail can you put into a  turtle or goomba?  The Wii U system performance is set to a level based on what Nintendo's internal developers wanted to be able to create with their own IP's in HD.  No matter how powerful the hardware, if a developer ignores the limitations of the hardware, and try to force more than the hardware can handle, its going to turn out like crap.   

I am not so sure about this. How could they develop a console strictly for their IPs when they are having to outsource development of HD content, or at least improve their internal development to be able to actually use the new GPU environment? I agree with everything your saying outside of this, but, we know Cryengine 3, Unreal 4, etc. can be cross ported. We know they worked with EA at some point during development, and I could imagine them being told how horrible the hardware would be then for those engines. 

 

I am not saying the Wii U is a mega power or anything, just that the platform is versatile, and once the install base is driven up, we will then see what it can, or cannot, do. 

 

  I wish consoles games gave gamers similar options for graphics tuning that PC's do.  If I could turn down a few things to get a solid 60FPS, I would do that in a lot of games. 

I like the aspect of console exclusives, where the developer has decided, "This is how I want the player to experience this, exactly like this." You see that with Nintendo, and, to a lesser extent, Sony devs (they are always pushing the hardware more and more). 

 

With PC, it is like, you can click optimize the settings, but that never really works out correctly. So, you can tweak for a constant 60 fps, but who knows if that was the intended experience (with graphics turned down, physics tweaked, draw distance, etc., etc.). All of the options sort of have you thinking, "I can either max the game at my monitor's native refresh rate/resolution, or I can reduce the quality of the experience." Of course, now, that reduced experience is usually, theoretically, as good or better, than the console's a year after launch, but it does not keep up that way (try running Sleeping Dogs on PC with a 1900XTX or even a 2900XT of which the 360 is somewhere in the middle). So, it is a catch 22, since the environments are so different. 

 

Speaking of which, a constant 30 feels like 60 with a controller to me, but 30 feels horrible using a mouse. 

[itsdavebaby]

Just wanted to say I'm satisfied with what Nintendo's released and I can't wait for all the games to come out for it and utilized the game pad.

[cannonshane]

If the game play is fun then I don't care of the graphics look like the nes, I buy a game to entertain me not to wank over the graphics.