Support NeoGAF

[megabytecr]

Two of my good friends (also members on this forum) claim that X and MK8 even have better graphics than anything shown on E3 (including XBONE & PS4).

Anybody agrees?

Don't think it was technically, but the visual impact it had on me certainly was. So alive and vivid.

All Nintendo games I have seen look better in motion than in stills.

 

[Freezie KO]

The visuals look great, although they could be more experimental in their art. Ironically, the visuals are the last thing I'm worried about with Nintendo's Wii U games.

 

[King_Moc]

You said "significantly better", which I disagreed with because I don't believe the gap will be as big this time around since these consoles are now hitting 1080p native and have full DX11+ functionality with all the bells & whistles, and massive amounts of RAM. I'm not arguing they won't look better... just the fact that you can take PC games up to 1600/1440p resolutions makes that an inarguable fact.

Did you say that at the start of last gen? 4K monitors will be here soon. Yeah, no one has one now, but they will shortly. A gen lasts a long time, so i'm not sure how you can make the statement that this gen will be different.

 

[nordique]

I'm not at all disgusted by them. I've said numerous times they look great for Wii U's hardware.



Right here dude:

So?

X could look better to someone even if it might not technically be as impressive as some PS4/XBO games in the numbers polygons calculations code sense (honestly, the difference is getting harder and harder to tell since everything seems to be HD with shiny lighting engines)

From someone's point of view, a very well done sci-fi japanese art style certainly looked better than all the rehash "realism" stuff being shown on the floor at the XBO/PS4 booths.

What so wrong with someone saying that if that's their opinion?

 

[Robot Pants]

Never thought I'd say this, but after e3 I might get a Wii u. Wind waker, super Mario, ssb, and BAYONETTA 2 have me very interested.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Did you say that at the start of last gen? 4K monitors will be here soon. Yeah, no one has one now, but they will shortly. A gen lasts a long time, so i'm not sure how you can make the statement that this gen will be different.

By the last third or maybe even half of the gen you're right, but it's going to take longer than before. 1080p was common during the early years of 360 and PS3. There's also a bigger difference to the eye going from 720 to 1080 than 1080 to 1440/1600. Who knows about 4k, that's probably 5+ years out before it gets a decent piece of the pie.

 

[Steve McQueen]

Wow. MK8 sure looks the part...wanna play this asap

 

[Al13n]

http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2013/06/11/wiiumariokart8scrn13e3jpg-50e966.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/20D8Eej.jpg

Direct feeds and 720p.

How can this be SO different from the other released screenshots?

 

[MilesVor]

I acknowledge that I'm probably in the minority here, and also that my feelings and subsequent response aren't really in the spirit of the question. That said, I've been pretty much living off of my 3DS lately. The games I've spent the most time with lately are Fire Emblem, Etrian Odyssey, Mario Kart 7, and just a little bit of Animal Crossing. These graphics are perfectly fine to me, and they aren't even the best looking stuff on the system. The games are pretty, if not overly detailed. But, mostly, what the 3DS is capable is enough (although there are certainly some instances where a low res texture is zoomed in on, or something equally unfortunate). The only concern I really have with the 3DS is it's ability to do large worlds and vast, open spaces.

Watching PS4 and XB1 footage, I am not impressed by the graphics. Better graphics are just not that big of a deal anymore. The scope and draw distance is impressive, but when we're just talking about filling out the background, I really can't get that excited. Artstyle is the one thing that makes a game (visually) pop for me these days, although I must admit that really I'm getting more interested in systems and general gameplay and less interested in graphics and stories.

I acknowledge that what was shown for Wii U was less graphically impressive than what was shown on the High End Twins. But the Wii U games came across to me mostly as "we're going to use all the juice we can get out of this thing to make a fun game", not "we're going to make it BIG AND SHINY". I am really excited to play those Wii U games, because they look fun. They also look pretty. All three consoles look pretty. Wii U is pretty enough for me to not care about it, and so PS4 and XB1 are beyond the point of diminishing returns for me.

I do plan on getting a PS4 though, because yeah some of those games looked really fun. But if it's just more "cinematic" or more lifelike, I could not fucking care less about it.

Thing is, art is completely subjective, while tech is not

People love to quote this, but that's not quite right.
For example, the reason Windwaker STILL looks gorgeous, is mainly because of the art.
Knack, Dead Rising 3, Second Son, etc all had technically good graphics.
But it's hard to deny that any of them showed an ounce of the personality and "warmth" that MK, X, and f***, even Donkey Kong showed.

Games like Killzone, FIFA, COD, etc you basically play until the next iteration comes long a year or more later. If you ever decide to go back to them, even within the same generation, they'll look outdated.

I doubt that anyone going back to Mario Kart towards the end of this gen will say it looks outdated. 'I've seen better", sure. But not outdated. Because they have more than polygons, they have character.

Studios like Quantic Dream keep saying polygons = emotions... but none of their games I have played so far was as uplifiting as a grin on Link's face in Windwaker, or the dancing flowers in NSMB. It's that kind of detail that makes a game timeless.
It's why people are STILL talking about Mario's cap coming off his head when you jump in Super Mario World

Art is subjective? Mostly, yes. But there's no denying some stuff is just great.
Why do you think artists like Van Gogh are still more famous, and their paintings more valuable than many of the most famous "photorealistic" painters of old.
Photorealistic is can be IMPRESSIVE, but it hardly ever is BEAUTIFUL.

Killzone looked impressive... but it's just people shooting, stuff exploding, ruined concrete environments with shiny windows, and the same old jungles.

 

[Calamari41]

People love to quote this, but that's not quite right.
For example, the reason Windwaker STILL looks gorgeous, is mainly because of the art.
Knack, Dead Rising 3, Second Son, etc all had technically good graphics.
But it's hard to deny that any of them showed an ounce of the personality and "warmth" that MK, X, and f***, even Donkey Kong showed.

Games like Killzone, FIFA, COD, etc you basically play until the next iterayion comes long a year or more later. If you ever decide to go back to them, even within the same generation, they'll look outdated.

I doubt that anyone going back to Mario Kart towards the end of this gen will say it looks outdated. 'I've seen better", sure. But not outdated. Because they have more than polygons, they have character.

Studios like Quantic Dream keep saying polygons = emotions... but none of their games I have played so far was as uplifiting as a grin on Link's face in Windwaker, or the dancing flowers in NSMB. It's that kind of detail that makes a game timeless.
It's why people are STILL talking about Mario's cap coming off his head when you jump in Super Mario World

Art is subjective? Mostly, yes. But there's no denying some stuff is just great.
Why do you think artists like Van Gogh are still more famous, and their paintings more valuable than many of the most famous "photorealistic" painters of old.
Photorealistic is can be IMPRESSIVE, but it hardly ever is BEAUTIFUL.

Killzone looked impressive... but it's just people shooting, stuff exploding, ruined concrete environments with shiny windows, and the same old jungles.

This guy gets it. The farewell bridge scene in shitty-looking old SD Ocarina of Time provides infinitely more than even the most spectacularly rendered "run across the deck of this ship as explosions surround you, and look! A plane is sliding down and exploding!" scene in the latest shooter.

 

[MilesVor]

Off screen video is hardly the best way to judge a game's graphics.

granturismorain.gif

Oh? Then where do I get a HDMI socket for my brains?
Because I'm pretty sure I'm sitting about 2-3 meters away from my 1080p HDTV, and I can't plug a HDMI cable into my head.


Sorry Calamari41, but I thought Bioshock Infinite gameplay was b*ll*cks.
However, that game was the most gorgeous video game I've seen since Windwaker. It was simply stunning,
and if I ever play it again, it would be because of the world.
And guess what? It was made in a fairly outdated UT3 engine version.
It was the art style, not the polygon count that made it so.

 

[H_Prestige]

How can someone honestly make a statement like this? How impressive games are technically isn't even an opinion, it's a fact, so it's not like he can resort to the "it's just my opinion!" excuse. I'm reading that and am just dumbfounded at how someone could think that based on what we've seen of Mario Kart and what we've seen on the other two consoles.

A game is either visually arresting, or it isn't. I don't break it down any further than that because there is no point.

That infamous shot does nothing for me. I don't care how detailed or realistic it looks. It doesn't make me want to keep looking at it or make me want to see more. MK8 does.

And to prove I'm not some idiot nintendo fanboy, I also think Killzone 2 looks phenomenal while KZ SF looks like trash.

 

[Eidan]

I thought MK8 and X looked pretty good. However, I can't get over how plain and sterile 3D World is. For all the talk of creative art design trumping technical power, 3D World seems like one of the worst examples someone could use to illustrate the former.

 

[Calamari41]

Sorry Calamari41, but I thought Bioshock Infinite gameplay was b*ll*cks.
However, that game was the most gorgeous video game I've seen since Windwaker. It was simply stunning,
and if I ever play it again, it would be because of the world.
And guess what? It was made in a fairly outdated UT3 engine version.
It was the art style, not the polygon count that made it so.

Gameplay was fine for me, but yes it was the art style, story, and graphic design that made such a big impact with me.

 

[MilesVor]

I thought MK8 and X looked pretty good. However, I can't get over how plain and sterile 3D World is. For all the talk of creative art design trumping technical power, 3D World seems like one of the worst examples someone could use to illustrate the former.

I agree. 3D World was the most disappointing, art-wise.
Or rather... I think the 3DS Land assets are bland-looking, but the art in general, the animation, the sharpness... it's beautiful to see it in movement.

Gameplay was fine for me, but yes it was the art style, story, and graphic design that made such a big impact with me.

Hehe, yup. And yes, Ocarina of Time always... kinda stuns me when I think of how emotionally attached I feel to it.
Since it wasn't really that big on story. Yet I felt more emotionally connected than any AAA game I've played recently.

 

[Bel_Air_Jeff]

People love to quote this, but that's not quite right.
For example, the reason Windwaker STILL looks gorgeous, is mainly because of the art.
Knack, Dead Rising 3, Second Son, etc all had technically good graphics.
But it's hard to deny that any of them showed an ounce of the personality and "warmth" that MK, X, and f***, even Donkey Kong showed.

Games like Killzone, FIFA, COD, etc you basically play until the next iteration comes long a year or more later. If you ever decide to go back to them, even within the same generation, they'll look outdated.

I doubt that anyone going back to Mario Kart towards the end of this gen will say it looks outdated. 'I've seen better", sure. But not outdated. Because they have more than polygons, they have character.

Studios like Quantic Dream keep saying polygons = emotions... but none of their games I have played so far was as uplifiting as a grin on Link's face in Windwaker, or the dancing flowers in NSMB. It's that kind of detail that makes a game timeless.
It's why people are STILL talking about Mario's cap coming off his head when you jump in Super Mario World

Art is subjective? Mostly, yes. But there's no denying some stuff is just great.
Why do you think artists like Van Gogh are still more famous, and their paintings more valuable than many of the most famous "photorealistic" painters of old.
Photorealistic is can be IMPRESSIVE, but it hardly ever is BEAUTIFUL.

Killzone looked impressive... but it's just people shooting, stuff exploding, ruined concrete environments with shiny windows, and the same old jungles.

you nailed it.

props.

 

[Kai Dracon]

On the note of art vs technology, one old comparison I've heard before:

Which technologically inferior CG film looks more appealing today?

1. Toy Story
2. Shrek

 

[joesiv]

Oh? Then where do I get a HDMI socket for my brains?
Because I'm pretty sure I'm sitting about 2-3 meters away from my 1080p HDTV, and I can't plug a HDMI cable into my head.

A camera does a poor job replicating what yours or my brain interprets, in this case mostly because it's not in motion.

 

[MilesVor]

A camera does a poor job replicating what yours or my brain interprets, in this case mostly because it's not in motion.

That was snarky of me, I apologise.
But yeah, I'll just wait till those games are out to judge.

 

[H_Prestige]

I agree. 3D World was the most disappointing, art-wise.
Or rather... I think the 3DS Land assets are bland-looking, but the art in general, the animation, the sharpness... it's beautiful to see it in movement.



Hehe, yup. And yes, Ocarina of Time always... kinda stuns me when I think of how emotionally attached I feel to it.
Since it wasn't really that big on story. Yet I felt more emotionally connected than any AAA game I've played recently.

Yeah, I'm playing OOT right now and I'm surprised how much fun it still is. The controls are a bit weird at first after years of dual analog. The visuals are still attractive and I love the character expressions. I feel more from them compared to the super poly plastic dolls of today's games.

 

[B.O.O.M]

People love to quote this, but that's not quite right.
For example, the reason Windwaker STILL looks gorgeous, is mainly because of the art.
Knack, Dead Rising 3, Second Son, etc all had technically good graphics.
But it's hard to deny that any of them showed an ounce of the personality and "warmth" that MK, X, and f***, even Donkey Kong showed.

Games like Killzone, FIFA, COD, etc you basically play until the next iteration comes long a year or more later. If you ever decide to go back to them, even within the same generation, they'll look outdated.

I doubt that anyone going back to Mario Kart towards the end of this gen will say it looks outdated. 'I've seen better", sure. But not outdated. Because they have more than polygons, they have character.

Studios like Quantic Dream keep saying polygons = emotions... but none of their games I have played so far was as uplifiting as a grin on Link's face in Windwaker, or the dancing flowers in NSMB. It's that kind of detail that makes a game timeless.
It's why people are STILL talking about Mario's cap coming off his head when you jump in Super Mario World

Art is subjective? Mostly, yes. But there's no denying some stuff is just great.
Why do you think artists like Van Gogh are still more famous, and their paintings more valuable than many of the most famous "photorealistic" painters of old.
Photorealistic is can be IMPRESSIVE, but it hardly ever is BEAUTIFUL.

Killzone looked impressive... but it's just people shooting, stuff exploding, ruined concrete environments with shiny windows, and the same old jungles.

You just did a whole rant on why in your opinion certain games have personality etc etc. Basically yes it's still subjective. I for one think the exact opposite on many points you just said. Doesn't make anyone of our answers the 'correct' one.

And your whole minimizing a game to 'just shooting etc' can be applied to nintendo games too. It's just 'jumping, it's the same old characters, it's the same art styles, same shiny bloom filled graphics. it's still kart racing etc etc. I can definitely look back at nintendo games and say they look outdated as hell with no problem too.

So what I'm saying is..take a step back and think for a moment. Everything really is subjective. Different people like different things.

 

[Meelow]

Two of my good friends (also members on this forum) claim that X and MK8 even have better graphics than anything shown on E3 (including XBONE & PS4).

Anybody agrees?

Mario Kart 8 graphics alone impressed me more than any Xbox One title shown.

PS4 graphics impressed me the most though.

 

[daakusedo]

I took some time to watch all the trailers on the wiiu and I say yes.
I stayed oddly locked on the 3d world developper video part when Mario stays still near the grass wheels in the floor, with the detailled grass coupled to the repetitive rolling, was kind of mesmerizing.

 

[Neo C.]

Personally, I think the "good enough" level (for 3D games) has been reached years ago (with the end of PS2/Cube era), and this is just icing on the cake.
I'm sure more and more people will join the "good enough" camp though, and only a tiny minority still thinks a pic by pic comparison has a worth.

 

[Freezie KO]

Personally, I think the "good enough" level (for 3D games) has been reached years ago (with the end of PS2/Cube era), and this is just icing on the cake.
I'm sure more and more people will join the "good enough" camp though, and only a tiny minority still thinks a pic by pic comparison has a worth.

I agree with this.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Nintendo has a style that translates really well as is to higher image quality.

Just slap some AA and higher resolutions on their Wii titles and you've got some of the prettiest software out there. Technically they will forever be behind, but when it amounts to the visuals of MK8, 3DWorld, and Wind Waker... who cares?

 

[moltonasty]

so, GAF thinks Smash=doodoo brown? Looks good to me so far, though X and Mario Kart def. had the best graffixxx shown.

 

[chertipros]

I am content with the wii u's graphical capabilities

 

[ArchangelWest]

I don't see how people think Super Mario 3D world is inferior to Galaxy. Come on people...

 

[Appleman]

Every thing looks great except for Donkey Kong, which looks kind of average, almost like development started on the Wii...

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Reading this thread I found out someone said galaxy loos better than 3D world...

 

[fuzzyreactor]

People love to quote this, but that's not quite right.
For example, the reason Windwaker STILL looks gorgeous, is mainly because of the art.
Knack, Dead Rising 3, Second Son, etc all had technically good graphics.
But it's hard to deny that any of them showed an ounce of the personality and "warmth" that MK, X, and f***, even Donkey Kong showed.

Games like Killzone, FIFA, COD, etc you basically play until the next iteration comes long a year or more later. If you ever decide to go back to them, even within the same generation, they'll look outdated.

I doubt that anyone going back to Mario Kart towards the end of this gen will say it looks outdated. 'I've seen better", sure. But not outdated. Because they have more than polygons, they have character.

Studios like Quantic Dream keep saying polygons = emotions... but none of their games I have played so far was as uplifiting as a grin on Link's face in Windwaker, or the dancing flowers in NSMB. It's that kind of detail that makes a game timeless.
It's why people are STILL talking about Mario's cap coming off his head when you jump in Super Mario World

Art is subjective? Mostly, yes. But there's no denying some stuff is just great.
Why do you think artists like Van Gogh are still more famous, and their paintings more valuable than many of the most famous "photorealistic" painters of old.
Photorealistic is can be IMPRESSIVE, but it hardly ever is BEAUTIFUL.

Killzone looked impressive... but it's just people shooting, stuff exploding, ruined concrete environments with shiny windows, and the same old jungles.

All this just to say I prefer colorful, cartoony graphics. Funny you mention Killzone series for your argument because personally Killzone 2 looks artistically better than anything Nintendo showed at E3.

 

[civilstrife]

Mario Kart 8 looks on par with all of the cartoon styled games shown so far on PS4 and Xbone.

Pretty surprised.

 

[DXLelouch153]

all that needs to be said is Bayonetta 2 gameplay was silky smooth

 

[Greenzxy]

Reading this thread I found out someone said galaxy loos better than 3D world...

Resolution wise, yea 3D World beats galaxy no problem. But I think Galaxy has the better anesthetics. I'm not digging 3D World's Mario Party plastic look it has going on.

 

[bobbychalkers]

Resolution wise, yea 3D World beats galaxy no problem. But I think Galaxy has the better anesthetics. I'm not digging 3D World's Mario Party plastic look it has going on.

Sorry...had to do it

 

[Greenzxy]

lol, whoops

 

[Mlatador]

I acknowledge that I'm probably in the minority here, and also that my feelings and subsequent response aren't really in the spirit of the question. That said, I've been pretty much living off of my 3DS lately. The games I've spent the most time with lately are Fire Emblem, Etrian Odyssey, Mario Kart 7, and just a little bit of Animal Crossing. These graphics are perfectly fine to me, and they aren't even the best looking stuff on the system. The games are pretty, if not overly detailed. But, mostly, what the 3DS is capable is enough (although there are certainly some instances where a low res texture is zoomed in on, or something equally unfortunate). The only concern I really have with the 3DS is it's ability to do large worlds and vast, open spaces.

Watching PS4 and XB1 footage, I am not impressed by the graphics. Better graphics are just not that big of a deal anymore. The scope and draw distance is impressive, but when we're just talking about filling out the background, I really can't get that excited. Artstyle is the one thing that makes a game (visually) pop for me these days, although I must admit that really I'm getting more interested in systems and general gameplay and less interested in graphics and stories.

I acknowledge that what was shown for Wii U was less graphically impressive than what was shown on the High End Twins. But the Wii U games came across to me mostly as "we're going to use all the juice we can get out of this thing to make a fun game", not "we're going to make it BIG AND SHINY". I am really excited to play those Wii U games, because they look fun. They also look pretty. All three consoles look pretty. Wii U is pretty enough for me to not care about it, and so PS4 and XB1 are beyond the point of diminishing returns for me.

I do plan on getting a PS4 though, because yeah some of those games looked really fun. But if it's just more "cinematic" or more lifelike, I could not fucking care less about it.

I coudn't agree more! You completely nailed it! That's exactly how I feel, too!

 

[Oblivion]

-Sonic Lost World
-Bayonetta 2
-Mario Kart 8
-Super Mario 3D World (yes, even this)

These were the 4 best looking games on the Wii-U, and I'm fine with the quality on every single one of them (for the most part).

 

[ugoo18]

In times like this i really wish Nintendo was more willing to release direct feed footage of their games for download.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Absolutely, games look fantastic. Really want to pick up 3D world this year.

 

[demolitio]

Mario Kart was my surprise hit after expecting a quick cash-in but it actually looks really good and clean. I expected Mario Kart to just kind of be there and for the new Mario game to blow me away but it seemed to be the exact opposite in terms of graphics AND gameplay. Not saying that Mario won't be fun in its own way, but nothing what it should have been to showcase the Wii U and convince people to buy the system. A true 3D Mario would have been a lot more impressive than the style of the 3DS game. I just hope it's not incredibly easy like we've heard.

I really need to learn more about X since I never looked into it before but it seems like a more mature game and completely different than the other Wii U games which has me excited and of course Bayonetta 2 hits that mark as well but I think X intrigues me more.

 

[Hermii]

I don't see how people think Super Mario 3D world is inferior to Galaxy. Come on people...

Maybe not technically but Galaxy has much more imaginative prettier looking worlds than what we seen so far from 3d world. 3D worlds design look too safe in a way.

 

[KKRT00]

Seriously, Nintendo fans are blind.
Reading that it looks like early next-gen game, when technically is inferior to almost all current-gen multiplatform games or reading that lighting is better in something like Super Mario 3D in compared to Galaxy, when both have 90 degree the simplest shadows and exactly the same lighting conditions, its just scary.

At least Mario Kart has decent lighting, but still looks very inferior to most current gen games.

 

[Lynd7]

Seriously, Nintendo fans are blind.
Reading that it looks like early next-gen game, when technically is inferior to almost all current-gen multiplatform games or reading that lighting is better in something like Super Mario 3D in compared to Galaxy, when both have 90 degree the simplest shadows and exactly the same lighting conditions, its just scary.

At least Mario Kart has decent lighting, but still looks very inferior to most current gen games.

I don't get whats inferior about it at all? Its 1080p 60FPS for starters...

 

[flattie]

I've been satisfied with everything I've seen from Nintendo graphically. More importantly though, there seems to be so many 60Hz games, which was something I wasn't expecting. I am happy to suffer some graphical hits to achieve performance like this.

I don't really know how it stacks up technically with the best PS3/360 games, but X looks beautiful in terms of direction. I wasn't really a big fan of Xenoblade, but this is now on my radar - looked a lot more vibrant than the reveal trailer.

 

[lightchris]

I don't get whats inferior about it at all? Its 1080p 60FPS for starters...

Mario Kart 8 isn't 1080p. Super Smash Bros is.

While I wouldn't go as far that MK looks worse than most current gen games, it doesn't strike me as particulary impressive (technically) either. I like the looks though. This is where Nintendo games often excel (just my opinion of course).

 

[StuBurns]

I'm not sure what people are debating here, is it if the Wii U is technically superior (it is), or if the results are more impressive?

 

[codhand]

not sure why someone chose to compare Heavy Rain to Mario, but whatever, these games looked great, I was happy with them.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Seriously, Nintendo fans are blind.
Reading that it looks like early next-gen game, when technically is inferior to almost all current-gen multiplatform games or reading that lighting is better in something like Super Mario 3D in compared to Galaxy, when both have 90 degree the simplest shadows and exactly the same lighting conditions, its just scary.

At least Mario Kart has decent lighting, but still looks very inferior to most current gen games.

Most of them are propping up anything that looks better than expected, as high as they can, with as much praise and hyperbole as they can, to downplay PS4/X1 visuals. It's transparent and quite disingenuous. I'm an idiot and I can see through it. With that said, it's not inferior to most current-gen games like you said. It's in the upper tier.

I don't get whats inferior about it at all? Its 1080p 60FPS for starters...

Mario Kart is 720p.