Wii uses lack of processing power to push developers

[Spyro]

We all know the PS3 and 360 have way better graphics than the Wii. Yet I have seen several threads recently saying that Metroid Prime 3 looks considerably better than Halo 3, despite HD resolutions.

Why?

Artwork. I think Nintendo chose to put a less powerful graphics card in the Wii to force developers to spend more time on the artwork rather than resolutions and polygons. We've seen this in Zelda, SSBB, and Metroid Prime 3 and more to come with the upcoming shots of Mario Galaxy. This is why I think Nintendo chose to downgrade the graphics.

Which of these would you rather look at?

They aren't really that good of examples until you see them in motion. But i'd still rather see the artwork than the higher resolutions.

 

[IzWiZzLe]

i guess its a matter of taste...some like really realistic games, while others like the game for the gameplay itself...to me, wii's graphics are good enough as long as the gameplay can keep me hooked....realism will only take you so far if the game bores you 1 hr in.

 

[COLDshiver]

I would like you to compare them to this:

 

[arcticreaver]

i dunno man, comparing halo3 to mp3 in turns of graphics? i would have to say i want halo 3's graphics. why? because of 1080p. why? because halo 3 can generate more polygons than the Wii and the fact is that 1080p is just way better than 480p.

mp3 has good graphics for a Wii game i mean. but if you put mp3 on say an xbox 360 or ps3, it would look way better.

 

[Spyro]

^ You missed the point.

 

[JeremyGTS]

yeah the artwork in metroid is stellar! id rather play an artsy game than some game with high polys and 1080p.

 

[sagema]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Ok the PS2 was the weakest console in the last gen. And FF12 looked very pretty. RE4 on the GC looked pretty good. Now the Wii is supposed to be 2x better graphically than the Wii. That means a game 2x prettier than RE4 is possible. It's just a fact that the developers wrote off Nintendo being #1. The same way it took a full year for the 360 to get a decent line up of games. Just give it time.

If I can make a 256 texture look prettier than a 1024 one from a crappy MMO, it tells me the artists for certain games determine how good a game can really look. All I see with some of these new games is artists hiding behind special effects. Go ahead and rip those out, how pretty would the game look then?

 

[JAKE196]

if your gonna use a MP3 picture and compare it to halo 3 don't use a picture from E3 2006. :-/

but yes i think mp3 is a beautiful game with decent graphics.

 

[Guitarsmasher108]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Ok the PS2 was the weakest console in the last gen. Now the Wii is supposed to be 2x better graphically than the Wii.then?

Speak for yourself. The Gamecube was the weakest game console of last gen, and the Wii isn't better graphically than itself. That=paradox

And about the topic, whether or not the Wii has an amazing graphics card or not, games created by Nintendo will always be distinguished in a good way. But most games created by third party companies don't always try to be artsy despite the graphics for the Wii; they just want to make a quick buck. The Wii isn't for graphics, it's for creativity and innovation, not just for "fun".

 

[Minako]

Definately have to side with Guitarsmasher. 9_9 I always hear about people putting down Nintendo for their relationship with polygons. XP Ok, maybe not always "putting down", but you get what I mean. I think what Nintendo really enjoys is a broad stroke of creativity in their art, and therefor, polygons aren't that zomg horrific. I don't even notice them most of the time.

 

[yungblood6]

if you were going to compare the two pics it would only be right to compare the mps pic with a pic from halo 3 single player not multiplayer. every one knows the graphics in the mulitplayer part of games are scaled down.

 

[cyberzomby]

I think that halo 3 screenie looks amazingly real. First real screen I see of Halo 3 btw.

The metroid screen looks more interesting because it has got so much more stuff on it. But I guess it depends wich screeny you take.

I do agree though. A game with more graphical stuff in it is nicer to play than a game that has just the coolnes of real graphics

 

[yungblood6]

i guess its a matter of taste...some like really realistic games, while others like the game for the gameplay itself...to me, wii's graphics are good enough as long as the gameplay can keep me hooked....realism will only take you so far if the game bores you 1 hr in.

This is the best opinion on this matter that i have heard! No graphics arent every thing, but it does emmerse you in the game better when graphics are great. i for one didnt care for nintendo since the game cube drought. Did not plan on getting a wii when i found out it wasnt going to be in hd. Im in love with the graphics capability of the 360 and ps3, but with any system you cant go on graphics alone. I got a wii and was surprised that i didnt even care what wii sports looked like, or what zelda looked like, it was fun. But at the same time the wii has it share of horrible looking and playing games, just as the 360 and the ps3 do. lets stop comparing apples and oranges, and just play the games that deserve to get played, and don't play the ones that are crap. No system is better then the other. Just like its different people in the world who like different things, there are different consoles that cater to differnt people, differnt games for different type of gamers. No matter what you choose remember THE COMPANIES ARE MAKING THE MONEY YOU ARE SPENDING IT. Get whats right for you if you can only get one, if you got it like that get em all. But lets not take sides thats ignorant

 

[Master Foot]

It really is a matter of opinion and preference. Although, from the pics, it looks like Halo 3 has just a comparable polygon count to MP3. The only difference is that Halo 3 is running 1080p textures as oposed to 480p in Prime. Watching the games in motion is what really matters anyway. I'm not hating on Halo, but I was expecting a LOT more in the graphics department for Halo, but that dosen't mean that Prime 3 gets a free pass.

I'm diggin the Trashcat

 

[yungblood6]

It really is a matter of opinion and preference. Although, from the pics, it looks like Halo 3 has just a comparable polygon count to MP3. The only difference is that Halo 3 is running 1080p textures as oposed to 480p in Prime. Watching the games in motion is what really matters anyway. I'm not hating on Halo, but I was expecting a LOT more in the graphics department for Halo, but that dosen't mean that Prime 3 gets a free pass.

I'm diggin the Trashcat

im an xbox player and Halo is overated. the first one was ground breaking but they have (in my opinion) been the same game over and over. this one with no exceptions its just halo 2 with a somewhat new story and better graphics, and a couple of new weapons. Only thing that makes halo 3 worth the purchase (in my opinion) is the multiplayer. I got the game at launch and have already played and beat the game on normal and the hardest difficulty leval Legendary. check my gamer tag if you need proof. on normal in 3 1/2 hours and on legendary 5 hours. yungblood6105