Game Informer: " Why Xenoblade Chronicles Makes Me Want To Punch a Kitten"

Well, like I've been saying, I don't need a graphical powerhouse to impress me. There are so many indie games that I LOVE! Beat Hazard imo is AMAZING. Same with Super Meat Boy, Rayman Origins, Minecraft, Jamestown, Machinarium, etc. These are games that while they aren't graphical powerhouses, they're artistic powerhouses. The art direction, the creativity, the simplicity in many cases blows me away. Skyward Sword feels like the exact opposite and part of that is due to how horrible it looks on the Wii.

Would you enjoy the game if it was 1080p and had no jaggies though?

I can't really understand thinking a game is crap but then suddenly enjoying it because it looks a bit nicer, seems to me like you just hated the gameplay more than anything.
 
Would you enjoy the game if it was 1080p and had no jaggies though?

I can't really understand thinking a game is crap but then suddenly enjoying it because it looks a bit nicer, seems to me like you just hated the gameplay more than anything.

Oh, I didn't enjoy the gameplay, that's true, but the amount of blurriness and jaggies compounded the lack of enjoyable gameplay for me. I know that I won't love the game on Dolphin but I think I'd find it easier to digest it if that makes sense.
 
Would you enjoy the game if it was 1080p and had no jaggies though?

I can't really understand thinking a game is crap but then suddenly enjoying it because it looks a bit nicer, seems to me like you just hated the gameplay more than anything.
SS visuals were distractingly bad for me, especially after coming off of a game like Skyrim. Yes, I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if it was a better looking game.
 
SS visuals were distractingly bad for me, especially after coming off of a game like Skyrim. Yes, I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if it was a better looking game.

I'm not really talking about enjoying it a bit more or enjoying it a bit less, I can understand wanting games to look better.

I mean you come to the conclusion when you play a game you full out right hate the game, like ClovingSteam did with SkywardSword.
No amount of resolution increasing or AA is going to make you want to play the game in that case.
 
Don't really buy the Sterling 'it wouldn't be possible in HD!" bit. The folks interested in games like this don't exactly expect GoW level graphics to start with. It is much more the jaggies, blurriness and extreme clip distance that cause the problem. Something an HD console could fix without increasing costs much at all. FFX/FF12 HD are a good example, I think.
 
some people neglect the fact that it was the lower res that made xenoblade possible

building a world like that in HD would require double or more staff than monolith currently has and much more funds

money doesnt grow on trees and i dont think nintendo would have founded that project if it was in HD. at least not at the point it was made.
 
Don't really buy the Sterling 'it wouldn't be possible in HD!" bit. The folks interested in games like this don't exactly expect GoW level graphics to start with. It is much more the jaggies, blurriness and extreme clip distance that cause the problem. Something an HD console could fix without increasing costs much at all. FFX/FF12 HD are a good example, I think.

Yep. Exactly.
 
There is nothing wrong with Xenoblade's graphics. Detailed work with wonky textures here and there. Astonishing art direction.

It's the image quality of Wii that I have trouble with. You can imagine Xenoblade on 110" screen. God damn. :(
 
What is the purpose of immersion? What makes immersion valuable? Because generally the answer given is escapism.

I think, again, that you've simply managed to convince yourself that your preferences are important and meaningful, because most people find it unappealing to admit they can be silly and superficial.

I don't understand why you would dismiss escapism though since it's a factor in our entertainment regardless if we're talking about games, movies, books, etc.

A story in a book wouldn't be quite as good if the writer failed to create a believable world for the reader to lose themselves in. This is done through the details the writer would introduce to the reader. As someone who has dabbled in art, these details can be important in telling a story itself, graphically speaking.

I don't need to convince myself of things I've experienced in many years of gaming.

In this case, we aren't talking about people acting immorally or unethically, just acting on silly, juvenile preferences. And even though that is much better than being explicitly immoral, it's still something people don't like to admit to -- and so people will find rationlizations to explain why superficial preferences are not only okay, but actually good and correct, as you have done here. People will go to great lengths to justify their behaviors and feel like they're deep, complex, and moral people.

The way the writer presented his thoughts can be seen as juvenile or silly, but his point was not juvenile and silly IMO.

And surely we wouldn't have so many McDonald's if it was just junk food. The fact that McDonald's is so popular is proof that it is healthy, beneficial food.

Fair point, just because something is standard doesn't necessarily make it true. I agree with you there.

Let me ask you this question: what attribute of a game do you feel is more superficial than the graphics?

This depends on the game in question though as making this kind of generalization doesn't hold water. If we were talking about a rhythm or puzzle game, then yeah graphics are extremely superficial. However if we're talking about a FPS or horror game, the graphics are a large part in selling the world and everything it's supposed to impose on the player (such as the feeling of horror for ex.). Do you believe GG would be able to sell the worlds in Killzone or that players would feel horror or dread in Dead Space if both games looked like Minecraft? True the gameplay could remain the same, but an important part of the game would be lost if those games displayed those types of graphics. IMO, as with most things in gaming, your question should be addressed on a game by game basis.

TBH I'm not familiar with the types of games you play, or the type of gamer you are, but I'm hoping I did a good enough job explaining this from my perspective.
 
SS visuals were distractingly bad for me, especially after coming off of a game like Skyrim. Yes, I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if it was a better looking game.

It's statements like this that make me wonder...

Skyrim is not a technical beast of a game due to its scale. Hell, people complained at its "poor" textures on PC, poor IQ in some ways, etc, etc.

Which makes me think that what you're saying is horrible about Skyward Sword is not actually its visual quality OR design, but merely the Wii's output. Resolution, image quality. aliasing.

Because otherwise I'd have to conclude you're talking about *style*. Aka Skyward Sword is not GWAR gritty western fantasy art direction.

Because as said above, no amount of hardware power and IQ is going to change that.
 
So since people are posting shots, and I haven't been able to get a good answer, is there some where I can go to get some good dolphin settings for Xenoblade?
 
If you say the Wii put out the ugliest visuals you have ever seen in a video game, and they are the ugliest visuals you've ever seen in a video game, then it is not an opinion. It is a fact. A pathetic fact, but a fact nonetheless.

And I still don't believe it.

Yes, because I truly believe that what I feel about how a game looks applies to the rest of the population of gamers. Yes. Truly.
 
There is nothing wrong with Xenoblade's graphics. Detailed work with wonky textures here and there. Astonishing art direction.

It's the image quality of Wii that I have trouble with. You can imagine Xenoblade on 110" screen. God damn. :(

I've actually played this game on a projector. Didn't look that bad in most places though a few of the zones were washed out. Satorl Marsh at night though was mind blowing, as was Eryth Sea during a meteor shower.
 
It's statements like this that make me wonder...

Skyrim is not a technical beast of a game due to its scale. Hell, people complained at its "poor" textures on PC, poor IQ in some ways, etc, etc.

Which makes me think that what you're saying is horrible about Skyward Sword is not actually its visual quality OR design, but merely the Wii's output. Resolution, image quality. aliasing.

Because otherwise I'd have to conclude you're talking about *style*. Aka Skyward Sword is not GWAR gritty western fantasy art direction.

Because as said above, no amount of hardware power and IQ is going to change that.

I'm reentering this thread for two reasons. #1, Opiate brought the fucking thunder in his first post, and I would play the shit of a an RPG with GWAR's art style.
 
It's statements like this that make me wonder...

Skyrim is not a technical beast of a game due to its scale. Hell, people complained at its "poor" textures on PC, poor IQ in some ways, etc, etc.

Which makes me think that what you're saying is horrible about Skyward Sword is not actually its visual quality OR design, but merely the Wii's output. Resolution, image quality. aliasing.

Because otherwise I'd have to conclude you're talking about *style*. Aka Skyward Sword is not GWAR gritty western fantasy art direction.

Because as said above, no amount of hardware power and IQ is going to change that.
Skyrim was a far better looking game than SS, even with it having more of a focus on scale.

To the bolded, I don't think you can separate visual quality from the system's capabilities. They're tied hand in hand.

SS on 360 would probably be breathtakingly beautiful. When I played it on Wii, it was sort of distracting.

SS's visuals were held back by the Wii. I'm not sure how this can be argued.
 
I'm not sure I agree. I can, right now, imagine games with vastly more complex graphics than games released today. Why doesn't thinking about those make you dislike Uncharted and Crysis? It doesn't seem rational.

Those games are tailored to output to a HD setup, the polycount is acceptable even for today standards, despite some shaky IQ. One thing is to take some compromises, another thing is to completely bend over.
 
I get the sentiments about making an HD version of the game and all that, but my question is would the game have gotten made if it were crafted from the ground up for an HD system?

I'm not talking about what they have now either.

I can't imagine developing this game, from zero, for an HD console and not have it be ridiculously expensive for a smaller Japanese company. Maybe the game would be a better experience, or maybe it'd just have less content because the developers aren't used to working with HD consoles and their assets.

It's no secret that a lot of AAA Japanese developers have been struggling with HD this gen. What about the smaller ones? They're all busy with the PSP, DS, Vita and 3DS.
 
Innovative and/or more powerful technology provides designers and artists with more possibilities. A greater canvas for aesthetic and gameplay innovation. It might not always be necessary for the scope of every project but I like to think the option to dream bigger and better is a benefit for my favorite hobby.
 
Great addition you're adding to our 'conversation' ;P

Only as good as yours.

Look, I know what you're doing, and I know exactly why you don't see why what I said was correct. Let me clarify:

You said the Wii was responsible for the "ugliest visuals" you've ever seen in a video game. Now this is either objectively true or false. If you said it and it wasn't meant to be taken as hyperbole (as per your response to my insinuation that it was), then it was objectively true.

If it is objectively true to you, the statement maker, that the Wii, a machine that remains at least as powerful as every machine behind it (but not combined, so let's close that little loophole right there), was the source of these so-called "ugliest visuals" YOU have ever seen, which is exactly what you said, then it would be an immutable fact. Not an opinion.

And as I have sincere doubts as to the validity of such a statement (indeed, I'd suspect most people here would doubt the same), it's likely truer that your original statement as quoted by me was hyperbole.

"This apple is the worst tasting thing I have ever eaten!" = Fact. Subject to my proclivity towards hyperbole. It is probably not be the worst tasting thing I have ever eaten. A 3 week old rotting corpse would probably taste worse in all actuality. But I just want it known that I don't like apples, which would still be a fact.

"This apple is the worst tasting thing in the world!" = Opinion. Pretty cut and dry. This has to be an opinion, or I am a massive liar. Barring some bizarre global viral outbreak that causes the populace to unanimously decide that apples taste worse than a festering pile of dog crap, there are plenty of people who have no problems with apples. Some of them even like apples more than peaches. The poor, bizarre, twisted motherfuckers.
 
Only as good as yours.

Look, I know what you're doing, and I know exactly why you don't see why what I said was correct. Let me clarify:

You said the Wii was responsible for the "ugliest visuals" you've ever seen in a video game. Now this is either objectively true or false. If you said it and it wasn't meant to be taken as hyperbole (as per your response to my insinuation that it was), then it was objectively true.

If it is objectively true to you, the statement maker, that the Wii, a machine that remains at least as powerful as every machine behind it (but not combined, so let's close that little loophole right there), was the source of these so-called "ugliest visuals" YOU have ever seen, which is exactly what you said, then it would be an immutable fact. Not an opinion.

And as I have sincere doubts as to the validity of such a statement (indeed, I'd suspect most people here would doubt the same), it's likely truer that your original statement as quoted by me was hyperbole.

"This apple is the worst tasting thing I have ever eaten!" = Fact. Subject to my proclivity towards hyperbole. It is probably not be the worst tasting thing I have ever eaten. A 3 week old rotting corpse would probably taste worse in all actuality. But I just want it known that I don't like apples, which would still be a fact.

"This apple is the worst tasting thing in the world!" = Opinion. Pretty cut and dry. This has to be an opinion, or I am a massive liar. Barring some bizarre global viral outbreak that causes the populace to unanimously decide that apples taste worse than a festering pile of dog crap, there are plenty of people who have no problems with apples. Some of them even like apples more than peaches. The poor, bizarre, twisted motherfuckers.

You continue misquoting me ;) if you look at my original post I said the Wii puts out some of the ugliest.

The article is 100% accurate IMO. The Nintendo Wii put out some of the ugliest visuals that I've ever seen in a video game. No, this isn't about needing great graphics to enjoy a game BUT it is about Nintendo putting out a piece of hardware that simply wasn't up to part for the games they put on the system. Skyward Sword is one of the most horrifying pieces of Nintendo software that I've ever seen and its simply inexcusable.

Which is true. Not hyperbole. Its put out some of the ugliest games Ive seen. That doesnt mean others agree.
 
You continue misquoting me ;) if you look at my original post I said the Wii puts out some of the ugliest.

The addition or subtraction of an adjective such as "some" does not change my point.

Which is true. Not hyperbole. Its put out some of the ugliest games Ive seen. That doesnt mean others agree.

Again with the "others". Who is talking about others?

Quick question: Have you ever seen an ugly PC game?
 
bring it.

lol!!














funny-gif-cat-vs-baby-slap.gif
 
What is the purpose of immersion? What makes immersion valuable? Because generally the answer given is escapism.

I think, again, that you've simply managed to convince yourself that your preferences are important and meaningful, because most people find it unappealing to admit they can be silly and superficial.

As a deliberately extreme example to clarify the concept, imagine someone who cheats on their significant other, and then rationalizes it in their mind: "She never treated me well, so she got what she deserves!" or "Monogamy isn't natural, you can't blame me!" and so forth. This is a case of someone acting poorly, and then doing mental summersaults to convince themselves that not only was their behavior acceptable, it was actually the correct, appropriate thing to do. The girl deserved to be cheated on.

In this case, we aren't talking about people acting immorally or unethically, just acting on silly, juvenile preferences. And even though that is much better than being explicitly immoral, it's still something people don't like to admit to -- and so people will find rationlizations to explain why superficial preferences are not only okay, but actually good and correct, as you have done here. People will go to great lengths to justify their behaviors and feel like they're deep, complex, and moral people.



And surely we wouldn't have so many McDonald's if it was just junk food. The fact that McDonald's is so popular is proof that it is healthy, beneficial food.



Let me ask you this question: what attribute of a game do you feel is more superficial than the graphics?

Good points.

Most/all people rationalize things into denial to some degree, but I do wonder why so many people refuse to admit that, for example, they are silly/superficial cause they prefer graphics. It's normal for human beings to enjoy things like graphics, but it's a shallow, superficial preference, something that is inherent in human physiology.

I want to enjoy older games, but the evolution of graphics has made it harder to go back to much older games. It's just something I am used to. It is indeed a very silly thing, but it's just a minor effect of the overall problem, and I think humans have to start recognizing their superficial and shallow traits as a species in order to evolve to a higher level.
 
Good points.
It's normal for human beings to enjoy things like graphics, but it's a shallow, superficial preference, something that is inherent in human physiology.

It's not shallow or superficial. It's a cultural acceptance of technological progress like sound or color in movies. Nothing speaks to the human condition like another human's experience and we still can't get that right in most games. IMO.
 
Completely agree with Opiate. Following the logic of a lot of people here a new console generation makes everything that has come before unplayable all of a sudden.
 
Completely agree with Opiate. Following the logic of a lot of people here a new console generation makes everything that has come before unplayable all of a sudden.
I think he's overthinking it, honestly. People would just prefer a better looking game to a worse looking game. You don't get that "wow" factor from Wii titles that you might get from playing a AAA title for PS3/360/PC, because the hardware is behind the times.
 
My guess is that Monolith could easily have made "cutscene versions" of the character models with more polygons and higher res textures like Square usually does (as far as I know) but they didn't have the budget to pull it off. Another source of ugliness is the super low-res textures on some larger walls/floors and rock formations but I suppose you can't really do any better with the Wii's limited texture memory. But I agree, I don't think this ever hampered my enjoyment of the game.
 
Even without Dolphin, I still think the game looks amazing visually.

Maybe I'm alone on that notion, but whatever.
True. I'm using my Wii2HDMI adapter and everything looks crisp. But I believe the problem some reviewers have are the low res textures in some areas. Now granted if it had been in HD the budget might have increased only by a margin, but I doubt the spots they have issues with would've been fixed given the time-frame and the manpower/resources they had at the time.
 
I think he's overthinking it, honestly. People would just prefer a better looking game to a worse looking game. You don't get that "wow" factor from Wii titles that you might get from playing a AAA title for PS3/360/PC, because the hardware is behind the times.

I still am wowed by previous gen games though. That moment when you get on the knee in Xenoblade definitely wowed me, even though I'm not a huge fan of the game. Skyward Sword stunned me in places too. This is all on a Wii with a fucked graphics card so the IQ is even worse than normal. I understand that people like nice IQ, just like how'd I'd rather watch a blu ray than a DVD, bit beyond that I really don't care. ICO and SOTC are still two of the best looking games on my PS3 for example.

I think the argument that better graphics create more relatable characters is nonsense too. As long as a character is well written and graphically consistent it will be relatable. Your brain will fill in the gaps. I mean, are characters in Ghibli movies not relatable because they're unrealistic? Toy Story? Fucking books???
 
I'd buy 10x more Nintendo first party games if they came out on 360/iOS.

I'm an adult, I don't want their hardware any more.
 
Completely agree with Opiate. Following the logic of a lot of people here a new console generation makes everything that has come before unplayable all of a sudden.

Many gamers (a lot of them on GAF) actually believe that.

They don't love video games, exactly. They love it when video games overlap with "wowie!" spectacle, and they can't handle it when they don't. Weird and sad.

Even sadder, they'll irrationally accept lower-powered, inferior tech in handhelds. They can play and enjoy those games. But not lower-powered consoles. For no real reason at all.

I think he's overthinking it, honestly. People would just prefer a better looking game to a worse looking game. You don't get that "wow" factor from Wii titles that you might get from playing a AAA title for PS3/360/PC, because the hardware is behind the times.

1) We're not talking about games you can get somewhere else. We're not talking about Wii downports or something. We're talking about games you can play on the Wii (or on a Wii emulator) or else you don't play them at all, like Xenoblade.

Preferring a better-looking game when you have options is one thing. I always got the Xbox ports of multi-platform games last generation because they were almost always better-looking and thus the definite console versions. But refusing to play a game you want to play because it isn't available on the "cutting edge" (derogatory console joke goes here) technology is pretty weird.

I can go back and play NES and pre-NES games and enjoy the heck out of them. I know the hardware's limitations and I simply enjoy the games for what they are instead of crying about what they aren't. What's wrong with people who can't do that?

2) lol @ comparing PS3 and 360 titles to PC games. I play PC games all the time that look better than what the two HD consoles are capable of providing.

I'd buy 10x more Nintendo first party games if they came out on 360/iOS.

I'm an adult, I don't want their hardware any more.

That's funny. You sound like a manchild.

But I believe the problem some reviewers have are the low res textures in some areas. Now granted if it had been in HD the budget might have increased only by a margin, but I doubt the spots they have issues with would've been fixed given the time-frame and the manpower/resources they had at the time.

But these reviewers are totally cool with rocks made from 4 polygons in Skyrim, right?
 
Top Bottom