The Conduit - "We are trying to make a Wii game that looks like a 360 title"

Xagarath

Ranced wrote: »

Xagarath wrote: »

Hence why I said "first-gen".
Half the 360 launch games were not terribly graphically impressive.

And I completely disagree. As aesthetically ugly (terrible art direction, i mean sooo bad) and mediocre a game PDZ is, it's still much better than that tech demo. Same with Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2.

Those are the three 360 FPS launch titles.

I mean, it's hard to watch videos of these games and that tech demo and say they look the same.

No it isn't, because that is my opinion.
With CoD2, at least.

UncleSporky

I don't want to jump too far ahead, here: we haven't seen much in the way of expansive outdoor areas without fog on this Wii engine yet, and we haven't seen the game in motion. But for now, the screens are comparable.

Ranced

Xagarath wrote: »

Ranced wrote: »

Xagarath wrote: »

Hence why I said "first-gen".
Half the 360 launch games were not terribly graphically impressive.

And I completely disagree. As aesthetically ugly (terrible art direction, i mean sooo bad) and mediocre a game PDZ is, it's still much better than that tech demo. Same with Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2.

Those are the three 360 FPS launch titles.

I mean, it's hard to watch videos of these games and that tech demo and say they look the same.

No it isn't, because that is my opinion.
With CoD2, at least.

Opinions are nice and all, but when it's something so easily comparable, and with an obvious difference.

but eh









Mind you, this game is locked at 60fps. I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Xagarath

Close-up character models do a good job of hiding how bad-looking the COD2 environments are.

But the hell with it they all look like nes games.

devoir

I feel bad for repeating myself in this thread, but I'd like to pick up on the bloom lighting thing. Riddick, etc look great. The games with bloom (to me) are the equivalent of putting a paste filter on a movie camera. I'm sick of it, it looks crap and I much prefer the look and detail of stuff like those Riddick screenshots.

Ranced

Xagarath wrote: »

Close-up character models do a good job of hiding how bad-looking the COD2 environments are.

But the hell with it they all look like nes games.

Okay, one more.



Battle-torn Russia looks fine to me.

UncleSporky

Ranced wrote: »

Xagarath wrote: »

Close-up character models do a good job of hiding how bad-looking the COD2 environments are.

But the hell with it they all look like nes games.

Okay, one more.



Battle-torn Russia looks fine to me.

Well yeah, but Red Steel could match that.

tyrannus

do we really need 2 threads for this topic? is this bullshit too much to confine to one thread?

Ranced

Dude I played Red Steel.

It does not look like that at all. Worst Wii game I ever borrowed.

UncleSporky

Ranced wrote: »

Dude I played Red Steel.

It does not look like that at all. Worst Wii game I ever borrowed.

I own it and it does look just like that. It's not that fun of a game but it's at least pretty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cGRBTxS0Tk
http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/821973/red-steel/videos/redsteel_101306_9.html

EDIT: This is the one to watch.

http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/821973/red-steel/videos/redsteel_101306_15.html

tyrannus

Red steel did not look like that for me. It was a little blurry, the aliasing was horrible, as is still the case in this new game, and the colors looked a little dull.

Yeah it's all fine and good that a Wii's getting a good-looking FPS game but it's kind hard to impress people with a game like that these days.

Ranced

I played it at 480p even. Ubisoft and their bullshots, as usual. As for the videos, a youtube video and a tiny video? You need a bigger and better quality stream than that for anyone who hasn't played it to see how poorly done it is. The framerate wasn't even bad, but the dips every now and then shouldn't happen with the kind of graphical quality they were putting out.


I'm honestly a little shocked we got Red Steel into this. If it even matters, I'll at least say this, CoD2 has big battles, Red Steel not so much.

UncleSporky

You really shouldn't project your feelings about a game's fun content onto its appearance. It looks like that. Frosted glass, environmental particle effects, geometry on par with CoD2. Rim lighting. I don't see what's so hard about this.

Ranced

Because it really, honestly does not look like that?

UncleSporky

Ranced wrote: »

Because it really, honestly does not look like that?

The video is totally made up? I totally didn't visit that garden, and it wasn't pretty at all.

Anyway, this is way off topic. Conduit looks pretty nice from what we can see so far, huh, guys.

Ranced

UncleSporky wrote: »

Ranced wrote: »

Because it really, honestly does not look like that?

The video is totally made up? I totally didn't visit that garden, and it wasn't pretty at all.

Did I say that? Oh well gee

No, that's a low quality youtube vid and a tiny ign vid. It's a little funny that we need a high definition feed (well, at least 640x480) to see how bad it looks. Those screenshots are way too flattering, can you give me at least that.

In the end, you'd have to watch the actual content of each game. Big battles versus RS's smaller battles, one game running at 60fps locked.

DigDug2000

UncleSporky wrote: »

Ranced wrote: »

Because it really, honestly does not look like that?

The video is totally made up? I totally didn't visit that garden, and it wasn't pretty at all.

Anyway, this is way off topic. Conduit looks pretty nice from what we can see so far, huh, guys.

It actually looks pretty crappy to me in IGNs video. Maybe its the compression. Or maybe its just because its a tech showcase with no real artistic direction at all. Or maybe the engine just isn't that good.

I'm happy to see some work being done to create good engines for the Wii. I'm happy to know that graphics on it will probably improve exponentially over its lifetime. But I'm way more happy to see zany quirky fun looking WiiWare games being announced pretty regularly now that aren't ports or clones of things we've seen on other systems, and that really take use of the Wii remote.

Ranced

To clarify, I much prefer the style Nintendo has been doing with Metroid Prime. MP3, though it doesn't have all the fancy effects this engine has, completely makes up for it by being aesthetically beautiful. The art direction in that game is top notch. This game, however, is gong for the more traditional FPS look, claiming it has 360 quality graphics, and thus so, failing at it. I made a comparison to some Xbox FPS games, pretty one's, and they were much closer.

I'm guessing some of you dudes don't agree with me at all, but Black is the game The Conduit should be compared to. Not a 360 game, at least not yet. It's nice that some devs are starting to try harder with the Wii hardware, but this dev in particular is making a ludicrous claim at this point, and so, I ridicule their engine for it. Sorry if I seem like I'm trolling because of that.

Noray

Those graphics look awful! If you really think this looks remotely good, good job, you've lowered your expectations so much you're this easily impressed. You're like the wife that gets beaten but still defends her husband because he's 'got a good heart' or some shit like that.

I mean, maybe there's some potential, but the tech demo video was so low-res you couldn't tell much from it, and it's pretty easy to generate a tech demo and go 'look guys!' The game in action is a very different thing when there's lots of things going on in an environment you didn't meticulously plan. The screenshots... awful.

Also, comparing Red Steel to CoD2 360? Really? :lol:

AndrewPaul

I think I need to see a higher res video of this thing, because what I saw didn't impress me at all. I'm also not an IGN Insider. I'll check Gametrailers later and see if my opinion changes.

darleysam

Xagarath wrote: »

Hence why I said "first-gen".
Half the 360 launch games were not terribly graphically impressive.

So it just about looks as good as the arse-end of the 360's launch titles?

I'll watch the video when I get home from work, and obviously if it's a fun game then graphics don't matter, but those screenshots do not look good. BUT THAT'S OKAY because that's not what the Wii is about and I do wish people who stood so proudly under the "GAMEPLAY NOT GRAPHICS" banner would shut up about how the new game on their console "HAS BETTER GRAPHICS THAN.." all of a sudden.

Sheep

Bionic Monkey wrote: »

Between this and that bug game, it looks like the cheap-ass PS2 ports are finally starting to abate.

Don't forget Mushroom Men.

Xagarath

darleysam wrote: »

Xagarath wrote: »

Hence why I said "first-gen".
Half the 360 launch games were not terribly graphically impressive.

So it just about looks as good as the arse-end of the 360's launch titles?

I'll watch the video when I get home from work, and obviously if it's a fun game then graphics don't matter, but those screenshots do not look good. BUT THAT'S OKAY because that's not what the Wii is about and I do wish people who stood so proudly under the "GAMEPLAY NOT GRAPHICS" banner would shut up about how the new game on their console "HAS BETTER GRAPHICS THAN.." all of a sudden.

It's more that some of us are happy to see developers making an effort.

UncleSporky

darleysam wrote: »

Xagarath wrote: »

Hence why I said "first-gen".
Half the 360 launch games were not terribly graphically impressive.

So it just about looks as good as the arse-end of the 360's launch titles?

I'll watch the video when I get home from work, and obviously if it's a fun game then graphics don't matter, but those screenshots do not look good. BUT THAT'S OKAY because that's not what the Wii is about and I do wish people who stood so proudly under the "GAMEPLAY NOT GRAPHICS" banner would shut up about how the new game on their console "HAS BETTER GRAPHICS THAN.." all of a sudden.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Ideally you would have both the graphics and the gameplay, so when one aspect gets better it's reason to celebrate.

Sheep

UncleSporky wrote: »

darleysam wrote: »

Xagarath wrote: »

Hence why I said "first-gen".
Half the 360 launch games were not terribly graphically impressive.

So it just about looks as good as the arse-end of the 360's launch titles?

I'll watch the video when I get home from work, and obviously if it's a fun game then graphics don't matter, but those screenshots do not look good. BUT THAT'S OKAY because that's not what the Wii is about and I do wish people who stood so proudly under the "GAMEPLAY NOT GRAPHICS" banner would shut up about how the new game on their console "HAS BETTER GRAPHICS THAN.." all of a sudden.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Ideally you would have both the graphics and the gameplay, so when one aspect gets better it's reason to celebrate.

It's simple dude.

You're just not allowed to like the graphics in a Wii game. Not allowed. No Spork for you.

darleysam

That's not what I'm saying. It's when you get the silly arguments trying to prove that this Wii game looks better than that 360 game, like it somehow validates its existence and the game fails if it doesn't. Because graphics are now the most important yardstick for the Wii, yup.

UncleSporky

Sheep

That's not what I'm saying.

Seems like it.

It's when you get the silly arguments trying to prove that this Wii game looks better than that 360 game, like it somehow validates its existence and the game fails if it doesn't.

No one was trying to prove anything. From the looks of it, someone compared them to early 360 games.

And then you went on some hyperbolic rant about "Games over Graphics" and something about the behavior of all Wii owners.

darleysam

If someone dares step into a thread with a title like this to say that actually no, the game doesn't look as good as a 360 game (as the title boldly proclaims), they get slapped around and called wrong. By all means enjoy the graphics on the Wii, I'm not saying you're not allowed to enjoy them. But those screenshots do not look up to the standard of the 360 or PS3, and to try and argue that they are is just deluding yourself.
My point is that it doesn't matter if they're not up to those standards, because that's not what the console is about. It's not an insult to say it "doesn't look as good as..". OH NOES! My 360 game doesn't have motion-sensing controls, well now I'm offended!

TheSonicRetard

If nothing else, this looks like it'd be fun to develop with. I'd like to toy around with it.

EDIT: With that said, the game they're making with this engine looks completely dull. Too much brown. If that's their idea of a "360 game" then they're dead wrong. I'd prefer some nice, bright colors. I believe pretty neon looks better than dull brown, and games like Halo 3 and Bioshock prove my point.

Sheep

(as the title boldly proclaims)

You mean the quote from the developer that states they're trying to make a Wii game that looks good?

Spork posted some 360 game screen shots that Conduit compares well against.

"doesn't look as good as.."

Yeah? Well, that's not what's being said.

So, I don't get how, "olo Dreamcast does better" or generalities about Wii players equates to, "that doesn't look as good as..."

Don't act surprised at the backlash. If a developer says they want to make a Wii game look good graphically, you honestly can't expect to jump into a thread and say, "No, it looks like crap and Wii owners should just give it up and not care about graphics", without some one being rubbed the wrong way.

Kuribo's Shoe

I don't care how it looks, it needs to play well for me to even care a little bit

it's not like I can't get a good fps elsewhere, you know

Sheep

it's not like I can't get a good fps elsewhere, you know

That's what I'm thinkin. If it doesn't even remotely stack up to CoD4 then I won't bother.

darleysam

I never said the Dreamcast did better, and those screenshots posted from Dreamcast games certainly refute that point. And good luck to them on trying to make it look better than a 360 title, but there's quite a disparity between the best and worst-looking 360 titles. If they're aiming for the lowest then there's no reason why they can't hit that target, but it's not really something to bellow about. There were also a few screenshots posted on the last page from pre-360 games that put this to shame.

edit: and I agree, I honestly don't care how it looks, just how it plays. If it looks good for a Wii title and plays well, then you can guarantee it'll be on my list of games to get when I finally buy the console.

TheSonicRetard

Not that I'm gonna sit here and argue that dreamcast games look better than wii tech demos (since they don't), but it's pretty unfair to take a blurry screenshot of Quake 3 for the dreamcast and put it up against a self-proclaimed powerhouse graphics engine for the wii. If nothing else, you should compare VGA screenshots of dreamcast games.

But, I digress - people arguing that the dreamcast looks better are technically wrong. The wii is much more of a beast than the dreamcast in several areas, not least of which is ram (which these days is almost as important as the CPU, as ram enables all the pretty effects we see today). A few dreamcast games might have better artistic composition, but thats extremely subjective.

As probably the biggest sega booster on this board, I can say with confidence that the video and screenshots we've seen are certainly well beyond the dreamcast, to the point where it's not even worth arguing about.

Sheep

Groovy.

Though posting Riddick in any thread is just unfair. StarBreeze needs to bottle and sell whatever black magic they used to make that game.

As probably the biggest sega booster on this board, I can say with confidence that the video and screenshots we've seen are certainly well beyond the dreamcast, to the point where it's not even worth arguing about.

I so wish you were around when the DC vs PS2 threads were active on the internets.

Also, you got anything planned for AC yet?

darleysam

Sleep wrote: »

Groovy.

Though posting Riddick in any thread is just unfair. StarBreeze needs to bottle and sell whatever black magic they used to make that game.

I wonder how the re-jigged version is going to look.

Ohio

I am being completely honest when I say that if you told me that video was displaying a PS2 game, I would have no trouble believing you, and I wouldn't be impressed.

It was the developer who said they're trying to make a 360-looking game, so we have to evaluate it as such. It looks terrible.

TheSonicRetard

Sleep wrote: »

As probably the biggest sega booster on this board, I can say with confidence that the video and screenshots we've seen are certainly well beyond the dreamcast, to the point where it's not even worth arguing about.

I so wish you were around when the DC vs PS2 threads were active on the internets.

Also, you got anything planned for AC yet?

Wish? I WAS around, and I slapped down many a PS2-loving ass with a dazzling array of technobabble.

I still am writing my article on the PS3's current online situation for AC, but I might need to tell etoychest to add on a 3rd person. I haven't submitted anything yet, and don't see my schedule clearing anytime soon. I just don't have enough time in the day.

I still want to do it, but I don't want to hold etoychest back.

Drunk_caterpillar

I make one snide, sarcastic remark about the Dreamcast and everyone starts pulling out screenshots of Sonic Adventure. Egads. Of course the Wii can do better than a console that was released seven years before it! All I'm saying is that you're going to have to do a little more than apply some normal maps to a low-poly bug model for me to get excited.

Oh, and to the guy who posted the screens of Doom 3. Those are screens from the PC version. The Xbox version was decidedly lower quality.