VGFacts

(09-14-2013, 03:59 PM)retrolinkx Wrote: [ -> ]I'm really confused here.

You talk about wanting better graphics, but your pictures show nothing but better resoution.

Are you asking for better graphics, or a higher resolution?

A console with better graphical power. The ability to play games in 1080p(which also factors in having a better CPU, GPU etc). Nintendo should've made the Wii a console that's graphically able to rival the Xbox 360 and PS3 but continue to make the games they want. We still get Twilight Princess, Kirby Epic Yarn and Brawl, but if they chose to make the console as powerful as the other two, then games would overall be better.

Basically saying, there's nothing wrong(much) with Nintendos games, but their hardware is severely underpowered which limits what games could look like if they had chosen to opt in for better hardware. Which reiterates my point in that graphics do matter. With high-end hardware, comes incredible resolution/graphics output.
(Better resolution is better graphics)

Nintendo are behind again with the Wii U in that it's only 1080p(and only one game is 1080p (ZombiU)) and yet Microsoft and Sony are pushing for 4K TVs.

Uh, I don't know about Microsoft, but Sony said that they're rather have 60 frames than 1080p this time round.

I remember they said that for Battlefield 4, cause it ran at 720p/60fps, and I believe Killzone ran at 1080p at 30 frames.

Also, don't believe Sony's lies.

(09-14-2013, 02:46 PM)Klonoa Wrote: [ -> ]Also I might as well say this.

Desipte what I said about the Wii U, I feel like my tastes are drifting away from what they were before.

Slowly I have been losing interest in once was once my absolute favourite series, Mario, and slowly have been moving towards more of the Sony side, building up a collection of PS1/2 games and SUPER KAWAII DESU WEABOO GAMES~~~~ for my PS3 and PC while Mario and friends slowly slip from my mind. I still keep an interest in other Nintendo games such as Pokémon and Smash bros, but really I'm becoming a weaboo and the only games Nintendo make for that market are the Kirby and Fire Emblem games.

On the other hand my top 3 games are still Nintendo made (Super Smash Bros Melee, Mother 3 and Super Mario Galaxy.) so maybe I'm still a Nintendo fan I dunno.

EDIT: HD Brawl looks sexy as hell, just saying.

Have you played Dream Team? Its so far great(I said that because I just started playing the game.) The game variety is fun and the humor is sure as hell funny!

I can say that Nintendo is trying to not use too much of resources just to give the console a fun experience. The Gamecube , Wii and N64 didn't do really well compared to Sony products but sure as hell had games that revolutionized the industry. Luigi's Mansion back then had great graphics and it ran smooth same as Dark Moon.

Maybe Nintendo doesn't want to compete with Sony or Microsoft. Maybe the're only concerned about the people who can't afford expensive things like PS3, 360 etc or who could afford but are not sure of where to begin.Maybe they want to make their games as friendly as possible so that their philosophy will always work. Maybe Nintendo is caring more about its consumers than other gamers. If they were serious, they would've released Starfox or F-Zero as soon as the Wii U launched.

(09-14-2013, 06:25 PM)retrolinkx Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, I don't know about Microsoft, but Sony said that they're rather have 60 frames than 1080p this time round.

I remember they said that for Battlefield 4, cause it ran at 720p/60fps, and I believe Killzone ran at 1080p at 30 frames.

Also, don't believe Sony's lies.

Fair and best to remain cautious. But they(both Sony and Microsoft) have stated they're aiming for 4K with Xbone shipping with a 4K lead, even though it may not be for games, the compatibility is still there(TV, Blu-ray etc).

PS3 games are either 720 or 1080 but Xbox can only be 720p as it's only a 1080p console(despite what some people think).

(09-15-2013, 04:01 AM)Artwark Wrote: [ -> ]I can say that Nintendo is trying to not use too much of resources just to give the console a fun experience. The Gamecube , Wii and N64 didn't do really well compared to Sony products but sure as hell had games that revolutionized the industry. Luigi's Mansion back then had great graphics and it ran smooth same as Dark Moon.

The PS1 yes, but the PS2 is actually the weakest console of that generation. The Dreamcast was a much more powerful machine able to give better output than the PS2. What bothers me about the 3DS is that the anti-aliasing is terrible. Animal Crossing: New Leaf, Pokemon X and Y and other games with a distinct art style have horrible "jaggies". The iPhone doesn't even have that level of quality.

(09-15-2013, 04:01 AM)Artwark Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe Nintendo doesn't want to compete with Sony or Microsoft. Maybe the're only concerned about the people who can't afford expensive things like PS3, 360 etc or who could afford but are not sure of where to begin.Maybe they want to make their games as friendly as possible so that their philosophy will always work. Maybe Nintendo is caring more about its consumers than other gamers. If they were serious, they would've released Starfox or F-Zero as soon as the Wii U launched.

Fair point. The only problem is that the (I can only speak for UK) Wii U was released with a price of £200 - £350
The PS4 has a retail price of £350.
So Nintendo have already made a console that's just as expensive as the PS4 so if you're looking for a cheap console this generation, it's not going to happen(going by launch prices. The Wii U now has had a price drop). It also backfires on Nintendo when a lot of the Wii U games are ports of Xbox 360 and PS3 games. So you may as well buy a cheap Xbox 360/PS3 for £100 and play all those games than buy a Wii U. Even if they didn't want to compete with Sony and Microsoft, they indirectly have by making the console the same price as the PS4 with less to offer.

(09-14-2013, 09:19 AM)BumblebeeCody Wrote: [ -> ]The PS1 yes, but the PS2 is actually the weakest console of that generation. The Dreamcast was a much more powerful machine able to give better output than the PS2. What bothers me about the 3DS is that the anti-aliasing is terrible. Animal Crossing: New Leaf, Pokemon X and Y and other games with a distinct art style have horrible "jaggies". The iPhone doesn't even have that level of quality.

Fair point. The only problem is that the (I can only speak for UK) Wii U was released with a price of £200 - £350
The PS4 has a retail price of £350.
So Nintendo have already made a console that's just as expensive as the PS4 so if you're looking for a cheap console this generation, it's not going to happen(going by launch prices. The Wii U now has had a price drop). It also backfires on Nintendo when a lot of the Wii U games are ports of Xbox 360 and PS3 games. So you may as well buy a cheap Xbox 360/PS3 for £100 and play all those games than buy a Wii U. Even if they didn't want to compete with Sony and Microsoft, they indirectly have by making the console the same price as the PS4 with less to offer.

Well that's your problem for that "jaggie" part. so far all the 3ds games I've played never gave me that "jaggie" issue because I'm least bothered about it and so do millions of em.
Which is why they made a price drop so next month will release a whole new bunch of lineup. I wonder how Lost World will do.....

(09-14-2013, 04:32 PM)BumblebeeCody Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-14-2013, 03:59 PM)retrolinkx Wrote: [ -> ]I'm really confused here.

You talk about wanting better graphics, but your pictures show nothing but better resoution.

Are you asking for better graphics, or a higher resolution?

A console with better graphical power. The ability to play games in 1080p(which also factors in having a better CPU, GPU etc). Nintendo should've made the Wii a console that's graphically able to rival the Xbox 360 and PS3 but continue to make the games they want. We still get Twilight Princess, Kirby Epic Yarn and Brawl, but if they chose to make the console as powerful as the other two, then games would overall be better.

Basically saying, there's nothing wrong(much) with Nintendos games, but their hardware is severely underpowered which limits what games could look like if they had chosen to opt in for better hardware. Which reiterates my point in that graphics do matter. With high-end hardware, comes incredible resolution/graphics output.
(Better resolution is better graphics)

Nintendo are behind again with the Wii U in that it's only 1080p(and only one game is 1080p (ZombiU)) and yet Microsoft and Sony are pushing for 4K TVs.

To be fair the PS3 didn't have that many 1080p games. I owned multiple high-profile PS3 games when I had the console, and the only ones that were 1080p were Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time and The Last of Us.

Also yeah 60fps > Anything else. It actually annoys me to an extent when they make things look nice at the expense of 60fps (I mean bloody SONIC GENERATIONS was only 60fps on PC for Christ's sake!).

And finally, if you want pretty graphics then PC is and will always be master race.

Wow I can't believe you guys are so into Frame rates and other stuff that many are probably not going to care about. I can't believe a single 1080p issue is what ruins a game experience.

So if you like played Super Mario Galaxy 1 or 2, you won't enjoy it because of it running at 720p? What a freak! I'm glad I don't complain about this stuff like you guys!

Eh man, that's a little extreme to say, refering to people as freaks because they like the capability of better processing and graphics. I'm a PC guy so let me tell you this. There's quite a big deal with that stuff.
Modded:

Somber ENB:

Realism ENB:

---

It isn't freakish to want more in a game when its already displayed that it is EASILY possible.

Look, I like the 3DS, I want one because all the great games. Heck, I'd want a Wii U except I don't see enough good games on it. As I said, look warm and needs to get hot.

(09-15-2013, 10:25 AM)Artwark Wrote: [ -> ]Wow I can't believe you guys are so into Frame rates and other stuff that many are probably not going to care about. I can't believe a single 1080p issue is what ruins a game experience.

So if you like played Super Mario Galaxy 1 or 2, you won't enjoy it because of it running at 720p? What a freak! I'm glad I don't complain about this stuff like you guys!

Hmm not really my point(I don't think anyone elses either). I'm only going to talk for myself, but it doesn't ruin the experience. Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are still absolutely incredible games. Two of the best games of last gen with memorable moments(Luigi Purple Coin challenge).

But I have to stress my point in that Nintendo should've opted in to have high end graphics cards. There is no downside to making a console instead of living in their own bubble. Make motion controls the focus point, but there isn't any reason to not rival the Xbox and PS3 in the graphics department as well. It means those who owned a Wii would've have to miss out on the amazing games that came to the Xbox 360 and PS3 like Mass Effect, Alice: Madness, Catherine, Street Fighter 4 etc. Wii owners deserve to be treated to the games above like everyone else, but the hardware doesn't allow for it, and that's Nintendos own fault. They alienated their own fanbase by making an inferior system and doing their own thing.
If Mario Galaxy looked like this:

Then Nintendo would be the top dog.
At least Nintendo fixed this with the Wii U and it's a stunning 1080p console(Wonderful 101 and Pikmin 3 look incredible). It also compliments the artists intention and doesn't butcher their work. Again, the games don't need a single change made to them - the hardware does.

The way I see it. If I had £40($60) and I wanted Okami/No More Heroes. I'd buy the PS3/Xbox 360 version over the Wii version because of what game offers on that platform. HD, online, leaderboards, achievements/trophies, account unlockables(avatar costumes, wallpapers etc). For the same amount of money, you get more on that platform. There's no need to settle for less. Nintendo not rivalling other companies is their own downfall and why they're in a pit that they're in.

I don't see the point in defending Nintendo on obviously bad business decisions. They're the only company that have consistently (by fans) have been given a pass on: poor hardware, consumer service, weak software library and milking of games.

(09-15-2013, 10:25 AM)Artwark Wrote: [ -> ]Wow I can't believe you guys are so into Frame rates and other stuff that many are probably not going to care about. I can't believe a single 1080p issue is what ruins a game experience.

So if you like played Super Mario Galaxy 1 or 2, you won't enjoy it because of it running at 720p? What a freak! I'm glad I don't complain about this stuff like you guys!

Oi there, insulting others is not cool whatsoever.

In my case, I said 60fps was important because it allows the game to be faster and more responsive. F-Zero X reduced the polygon count so that it could run at 60fps so even Nintendo know the importance of 60fps.

Also while I see graphics as a bonus rather than a necessity, it's still a part of the game and bad graphics can harm it. Just look at Bubsy 3D if you want an example of bad graphics being a flaw in the game.

Also is there a picture of Wario land: The Shake Dimension in HD? That game is sweet enough in 480 so 1080 must make it look fantastic.

(09-15-2013, 10:25 AM)Artwark Wrote: [ -> ]Wow I can't believe you guys are so into Frame rates and other stuff that many are probably not going to care about. I can't believe a single 1080p issue is what ruins a game experience.

So if you like played Super Mario Galaxy 1 or 2, you won't enjoy it because of it running at 720p? What a freak! I'm glad I don't complain about this stuff like you guys!

You try playing a game at 60fps and then try to go back to 30fps and tell me it's not a jarring adjustment. Also I don't think I've read any complaining in anyone else's posts, so I don't know where you're getting that either.

Also, where the hell are you pulling this SMG1&2 is not enjoyable because of a difference in the framerate? SMG doesn't run any other framerate and can't be judged for framerate.

I sent an email to someone I know who has done work on the Cry Engine in hopes of getting some insight into how graphics are processed on the Wii U GPU and possible reasons why third-party developers are not too interested in the Wii U, but he hasn't gotten back to me.

All I can say is that it's a neat piece of technology, but it really is just a gimmick.

The way i see it, Nintendo tries to be different and that make people mad because honestly, who wouldn't want to play Zelda, Metroid or any other Nintendo games on a 360 or ps3 like console instead of gimmicky console that lack up to date console that THIS gen has(ps3 and 360 has stable account system while WiiU and 3ds has the account "It brick,it's gone" system). Also the Gimmick part is also frustrating to fans and developers alike. as bethesda puts it:

Quote: You have to do what Sony and Microsoft have been doing with us for a long time.

And it’s not that every time we met with them we got all the answers we wanted. But they involved us very early on, and talking to folks like Bethesda and Gearbox, they say ‘Here’s what we’re doing, here’s what we’re planning, here’s how we think it’s going to work’ to hear what we thought, from our tech guys, and from an experience standpoint.

You have to spend an unbelievable amount of time upfront doing that. If you’re just going sort off deciding ‘we’re going to make a box and this is how it works and you should make games for it.’ Well, no. No is my answer, I’m going to focus on other ones that better support what it is we’re trying to do.

So you’ve gotta spend more time trying to reach out to those folks before you even make the box, when you’re still designing and thinking about how it’s going to work.

People who hate Nintendo also seem to not notice (or choose to not notice) some of the great games that come out.

A minor example: I never once heard Nintendo Land mentioned under the good Wii U games, despite it being an incredible game. The problem is image. Nintendo Land doesn't look like a good game, it looks childish and gimmicky, right? But in fact it's actually a stunningly good game with a lot more content than it seems.

Now that's just one game, but throughout Nintendo's history people fail to notice these gems or disregard them as trash.

Ok i apologize for the harsh comment. But still, now that the Wii U runs in HD, third party devs can now make games out of it. If they don't want to use a tablet, then they can use the pro controller instead. So why can't they do that?

(09-15-2013, 08:18 PM)Koopaul Wrote: [ -> ]People who hate Nintendo also seem to not notice (or choose to not notice) some of the great games that come out.

A minor example: I never once heard Nintendo Land mentioned under the good Wii U games, despite it being an incredible game. The problem is image. Nintendo Land doesn't look like a good game, it looks childish and gimmicky, right? But in fact it's actually a stunningly good game with a lot more content than it seems.

Now that's just one game, but throughout Nintendo's history people fail to notice these gems or disregard them as trash.

I played Nintendo land for a bit but I didn't play enough to get a proper feel for my opinions, in the short time I knew someone who owned one I mainly played NSMBU (Which is actually a damn good game and far more enjoyable than NSMBW).

I don't see the console as dead. Just needing a kick up the arse. Graphics personally aren't all THAT important to me as long as there are games that I enjoy.

The only thing is that the PS4 seems to have lots of nice games as well.