177 replies to this topic

[Chikara Nadir]

Or...it would sound like the act of weening your children off breast milk.

[SteveT]

which is perfect. The children represent the general gaming populace, and breast milk is all the games made up until the re--Wii's release.

Nintedo's bringing the solid food, mukkas.

Edited by SteveT, 30 April 2006 - 12:48 AM.

[Koji]

Maybe somebody else already said this and I missed it, but now you can call the controller *drum roll*

The Wii-mote.

[Hero of Legend]

Whoaa buddy the grahpics for Red Steel are horrible, they are like some clay models I can make with playdoh

Funny that they look like Xbox 360 graphics then.

Wow...You just admitted to it

Yeah, I admitted that you can run around with a wireless controller, such as the Wavebird. Oh noes!

Umm not really? You have to hold one thing in one hand and one thing in another hand, using one controller you hold 1 thing so 1<2

That's the same as using a normal controller, you know...

LOL Eye Toy you barely move around, you just stand there like an idiot moving your hands/arms, plus no one even plays the Eye Toy for hours, however the Wii controller is the main part of the console and that is used for playing games, I don't think anyone would want to move around for like 6 hours just to play a damn game

You move around less when playing with the Wiimote than when playing with the Eye Toy. In fact, you only move your hands slightly. And who says you have to play the game for 6 hours straight?

Also, you might want to explain why those Dance games sell so well while you're at it.

So you hold your remote controller the whole time you watch t.v? Like I said earlier people will want to play their games for hours, and you're going to have to hold this weird looking controller for hours..

I watch TV for hours and I hold my remote, like any sane person. There is no difference between the Wiimote and a normal remote.

WiiN ftw.

Nintendo For The WiiN.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 30 April 2006 - 03:34 AM.

[Flint]

Maybe somebody else already said this and I missed it, but now you can call the controller *drum roll*

The Wii-mote.

Nice.

[Hero of Winds]

Funny that they look like Xbox 360 graphics then.

It might actually help if you've played a 360, or have seen the visuals on the games that've already been released and/or are being released later this year.

[HarryHatMan]

http://img.hexus.net..._dark_large.jpg
A nice looking launch title for 360, PDZ, and ingame shot that is used all over the place, and a press release shot at that, so made to 'show off'.

http://www.ngcfrance...eel/sca_002.jpg
One of the best shots of Red Steel, also designed to show off.

Loverly particle effects on both, sure one is inside so we don't know draw distance, which, lets face it, won't be as high. But the poly count looks lovely... perfectly fine. The only thing that the Wii does not do well looking at these is the insane amount of bump mapping that seems to be the trend in 360 game, but frankly, I think PDZ and Kameo overdid it, look at DOA for how to use bump mapping perfectly.

Anyways, with Wii running on an upgraded GC hardware and code, I would be quite happy if all my Wii games looked like Resi 4. Wouldn't you?

(Note: Notice the amount of abbreviations in here, DOA, PDZ, 360, GC... and, oh wait. Wii)

[dcLx]

Funny that they look like Xbox 360 graphics then.

Wow...You have some real bad eyes or something...

[Hero of Winds]

Harry: You're comparing a 2005 game (whose next-gen graphical prowess is merely a plastic shine coated onto every texture) to a 2006 game whose graphics can't even be verified to the point you're trying to make due to the fact that those pics are scans.

Rather than compare a Wii game to a predominantly current-gen title, why not compare it to something to true 360 games like GRAW? Or Fight Night Round 3? Or Oblivion? Or Too Human? Or Mass Effect? Or Splinter Cell Double Agent? Or Condemnded? Or Brothers in Arms 3? Or The Darkness?

Edited by Hero of Winds, 30 April 2006 - 01:36 PM.

[HarryHatMan]

Good point HoW, just doing my bit as a Fan-Boy! Those scans are probably not the best thing to judge on, either for or against, and I must also admit, some of the games you listed have sported wonderful graphics, such as Too Human and Condemned.

However, still look at GRAW on the 360, which I own, it sports wonderful graphics which I think set an standard for what we can expect this gen. Of course, I look forward to the aforementioned games and their delights on the eye, but GRAW is not that many steps ahead of games such as RESI4 or TP

http://www.winsupers...ostrecon_02.jpg

http://www.gamersmar...11053978255.jpg

http://cubemedia.gam...10025201193.jpg

Of course the Wii won't be as good as the 360, but if you want a game to look really loverly, get some good texture artist!

[thabto81]

Whoaa buddy the grahpics for Red Steel are horrible, they are like some clay models I can make with playdoh

Funny that they look like Xbox 360 graphics then.

Harry: You're comparing a 2005 game (whose next-gen graphical prowess is merely a plastic shine coated onto every texture) to a 2006 game whose graphics can't even be verified to the point you're trying to make due to the fact that those pics are scans.

Firstly, DaHustle, aren't you exagerating just a little bit?

Second, HoL, I think the graphics are probably more on par to a revved up Xbox and not a 360.

Thirdly, since when do graphics matter all that much? I understand we want our games to look pretty but how many of you have played games that looked great but sucked hard? (BLACK) I also feel it should be mentioned that it isn't uncommon to have second and third wave games for a next gen console to look and play better then the first wave. So at least, for those that feel it's too important to gloss over, the graphics will get better.

[Reflectionist]

you'd think the japanese would be a little skiddish around naming something one letter off from being wwii

[Hero of Legend]

It might actually help if you've played a 360, or have seen the visuals on the games that've already been released and/or are being released later this year.

Oh, I'm not denying that future Xbox 360 games will look and perform better than Red Steel, or any other Wii game. What I’m saying is that Red Steel definitely is comparable to many of the 360 games we have today (I'm sure you can think of a few examples yourself), thus the game looks like it has 360 graphics, even if they're not "optimal".

Point is: Saying that Red Steel doesn't look next-gen is idiotic. I'm sure you can agree with that.

Wow...You have some real bad eyes or something...

Desperate enough to start with personal attacks, are we?

Harry: You're comparing a 2005 game (whose next-gen graphical prowess is merely a plastic shine coated onto every texture) to a 2006 game whose graphics can't even be verified to the point you're trying to make due to the fact that those pics are scans.

Rather than compare a Wii game to a predominantly current-gen title, why not compare it to something to true 360 games like GRAW? Or Fight Night Round 3? Or Oblivion? Or Too Human? Or Mass Effect? Or Splinter Cell Double Agent? Or Condemnded? Or Brothers in Arms 3? Or The Darkness?

Ironically, the same thing could be said about comparing a Wii launch-game to second gen 360 games.

And there are several games on that list where the difference is significantly less than the night-and-day thing you're making it out to be, so yeah.

Second, HoL, I think the graphics are probably more on par to a revved up Xbox and not a 360.

Well, that's what some "next-gen" 360 games look like.

Heh, more seriously – In case any of you didn’t know, graphics have more to do with software than hardware. After all, you can still play a new, great-looking PC game on an old computer, it just runs slowly. Thing is, performance can be optimized through more efficient programming, and it often is in video games (that's why latter games look better than launch games) so I don’t see why Wii games will look that horribly different from 360 games (at least not until the multi-core stuff starts rolling in).

You also have to remember that a lot of the 360’s power goes to HD support.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 30 April 2006 - 04:13 PM.

[dcLx]

Firstly, DaHustle, aren't you exagerating just a little bit?

Second, HoL, I think the graphics are probably more on par to a revved up Xbox and not a 360.

Thirdly, since when do graphics matter all that much? I understand we want our games to look pretty but how many of you have played games that looked great but sucked hard? (BLACK)

Yes, I kinda am lol but still Red Steel isn't showing the power of a next-gen console, and another thing Black was a great game....



And Hero of Legend, Red Steel's graphics are bad I mean look at FNR3 they look all real i swear to god and PGR3 I saw the commercial and thought they were showing a race or something but Red Steel? It's just a game with current-gen graphics

[Flint]

Shoddy screenshots of a game nowhere near completion on a system not even released in Japan yet are a poor basis for the power of the console.

[thabto81]

Well, that's what some "next-gen" 360 games look like.

I'll concede to this to a point. If you compare this first wave of 360 games to the later Xbox games on your standard television set, the difference is negligible. But when you add HD to the mix that's when the gap truly shows.

You also have to remember that a lot of the 360’s power goes to HD support.

A luxury, I must add, most people don't even have yet.

Yes, I kinda am lol but still Red Steel isn't showing the power of a next-gen console, and another thing Black was a great game....

If you say so. But personally speaking a game that's really good at the explody and not much else doesn't much qualify, in my book, as a great game.

Edited by thabto81, 30 April 2006 - 05:05 PM.

[Xeres]

I'd just like to note that my MSN name has been 'We Are The Nerds Who Play Wii!' before I read this thread... So... My thunder has been... Pre-empted. Or something.

Secondly, I think the name is funny. I don't really care what my console is called. And I'm getting rather sick of just adding numbers to the current console names. The next Xbox will be the Xbo 720? And the PS4? Kay. I can live with that, just like I can live with making silly jokes about wanting to play with my Wii. If anything, I'll just add 'Nintendo' in front of it. "Hi, I'd like to purchase a Nintendo Wii. Yes. Pee from Nintendo. Gimme my damn console, monkey-boy." The only problem is that it associates bad grammar in those who are unfamiliar with the gaming world. "We will play with our Wii, and the Wii games are great." Sounds like you need some ESL. And the french will just be more agreeable. "Wii? Oui!"

This is probably the easiest way Nintendo has gotten people to talk. Companies usually have to release hard numbers and screenshots in order to get this level of communication. Nintendo did it with just a name. That's pretty handy.

The explaination is a little too abstract and arthouse pompous for my liking. I'm glad Nintendo wants to make it about 'Wii'... But... That was a little too over-the-top for my tastes.

Doesn't change my opinion about buying the console. I'll go and buy my Nintendo Wii, then have a Wii, then play with my Wii... After washing my hands.

To summarize? Nintendo Wii?

Woo.

[Hero of Winds]

Shoddy screenshots of a game nowhere near completion on a system not even released in Japan yet are a poor basis for the power of the console.

But already-released specs, coupled with not-so-glowing comments from devs like EA and Ubisoft, are.

HoL: I see your point about Red Steel looking better than a number of 360 launch titles, or even current-gen games released in 2005 looking better than those aforementioned launch titles. But I don't think comparing the end product of one generation to the beginning of the next is a fair comparison. That's like comparing Majora's Mask to Fantavision. A better comparison would be Majora's Mask to Twilight Princess. Or (more appropriate for the Xbox-related disucssion), Halo to Call of Duty 2.

[Flint]

But already-released specs, coupled with not-so-glowing comments from devs like EA and Ubisoft, are.

If the last generation of consoles (ps2, gc, xbox) has taught me anything, it's that specs mean diddly and EA sucks.

Edited by Flint, 30 April 2006 - 06:27 PM.

[thabto81]

...EA sucks.

Here here!

[Goose]

I love the debate. Its turned into Contro, with all the usual stuff there. This is great.

WHEN NERDS GO NUTS!!

[Pacman]

I like Revolution better. But I'm still going to get it.

[Hero of Legend]

And Hero of Legend, Red Steel's graphics are bad I mean look at FNR3 they look all real i swear to god and PGR3 I saw the commercial and thought they were showing a race or something but Red Steel? It's just a game with current-gen graphics

You are welcome to point out these current-gen games that look like Red Steel. And for the record, you can't compare a racing game to an FPS (It is much harder to design good looking people than cars, and the games run on completely different kind of engines).

Shoddy screenshots of a game nowhere near completion on a system not even released in Japan yet are a poor basis for the power of the console.

Indeed.

HoL: I see your point about Red Steel looking better than a number of 360 launch titles, or even current-gen games released in 2005 looking better than those aforementioned launch titles. But I don't think comparing the end product of one generation to the beginning of the next is a fair comparison. That's like comparing Majora's Mask to Fantavision. A better comparison would be Majora's Mask to Twilight Princess. Or (more appropriate for the Xbox-related disucssion), Halo to Call of Duty 2.

True. But you have to remember that the difference between current and next-gen graphics is significantly less than it was the last time we got new systems (PS1/N64 - PS2/GC). Therefore you can't really compare a N64 game to a GC game and use that as an argument in this debate. The Halo and CoD2 comparison is more accurate, and a better point.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 01 May 2006 - 01:22 PM.

[Hero of Winds]

But you have to remember that the difference between current and next-gen graphics is significantly less than it was the last time we got new systems (PS1/N64 - PS2/GC). Therefore you can't really compare a N64 game to a GC game and use that as an argument in this debate.

Not so. The next-generation only began six months ago, so there's no way to know what this new gen is capable of in order to say the gap between it and the last generation isn't as significant as previous gaps.

[dcLx]

If you say so. But personally speaking a game that's really good at the explody and not much else doesn't much qualify, in my book, as a great game.

Well I like FPS and just blowing up things, I think thats fun lol

[Overconfidence]

A luxury, I must add, most people don't even have yet.

Ehhh. You can buy a 19" HDTV resolution equivalent LCD monitor for $300 nowadays.

[thabto81]

Ehhh. You can buy a 19" HDTV resolution equivalent LCD monitor for $300 nowadays.

This is true but how well, might I ask, are the sells doing for that size HD?

[Hero of Winds]

Just for reference, here is pic of the Wii version of Rayman 4. Since Red Steel's only exists as a bunch of GI scans, this is the most reliable (thus far) showcase of the Wii's power.

And it doesn't look too good. Nintendo better hope that controller is as innovative as the hype suggests.

[D~N]

Well, that's rayman's graphic style; it's always been rather edgy. But yeah, I agree that it looks bad. hhmmm...

[Selena]

Yeah, since when has RAYMAN been the kind of game you want to judge a consoles power on? None of the games in that series have had impressive graphics.


Oh, and...

Ehhh. You can buy a 19" HDTV resolution equivalent LCD monitor for $300 nowadays.

Add that price to a console that ALSO costs a couple hundred dollars? That's a pretty penny. I could only afford one or the other.

Edited by Selena, 03 May 2006 - 06:44 PM.