What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
70 Comments
- Animan351, on 10/28/2009, -17/+53Those are some great early PS2 graphics!
- GodsHand, on 10/28/2009, -8/+41That is actually pretty impressive for 10 year old technology.
- deaftly, on 10/28/2009, -10/+28Looks like a game from 10 years ago. Oh its on the Wii, nm.
- sneaker98, on 10/28/2009, -15/+29Sometimes, I forget how entitled Digg users have become.
They're just graphics, people. It doesn't mean the game is bad. Gameplay and story are far more important to how you should rate a game, yet all the comments I see above are based on looks alone. - BrownieMix, on 10/28/2009, -9/+21Not impressive.
- ban1d0, on 10/28/2009, -9/+21meh
- MikeWanDo, on 10/28/2009, -2/+12The videos were pretty low quality so I'll reserve final judgment for some better videos. Though, from the comments I was expecting truly awful graphics, but they really weren't that bad. I'm not going to contest that the game didn't look as good as some 360, PS3 or PC games, but for the Wii the graphics actually seem really good.
- kingmanic, on 10/28/2009, -0/+8SpeedSteamBoat: Movie tie ins are a very specific creature. Arkham Asylum is as much a movie tie in as Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 or Marvel vs Capcom. That is to say it is not a movie tie in.
A movie tie in is a game made specifically to cash in on the Halo effect of the release of a movie. By re-using the advertising of the movie to promote the game. The reason most of the suck is because the average games development cycle is longer than the average movies development cycle means that they NEED to cut corners to make it on time. Generally the only movie tie in that dont' suck are ones that came out much later after the film. Like Golden Eye, Aladdin or Batman (NES). - Dealjobber, on 10/28/2009, -2/+9I don't think you remember early PS2 graphics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIhhsk8R6w&fea ... - SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/28/2009, -1/+8You're right, but the trouble is that the gameplay didn't look like anything special either. It might be to early to tell, but it looks like pretty standard action-adventure fare.
That said, I only think that graphics are a real issue when they get in the way of gameplay; when they're distracting.
For a lot of people, a game looking like it belongs on the PS2 is distracting. It can be hard to focus on the gameplay, at least initially, when you just keep thinking "wow... that looks like crap." at every turn. - rebrad, on 10/28/2009, -6/+13LoRez.....Hurts my eyes.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/28/2009, -0/+6"If a game looking like it belongs on the ps2 is distracting then why is the wii the best selling console out?"
That's a red herring. How well the Wii has sold says nothing of what people, particularly the "hardcore gamer" demographic, which presumably most prevalent on Digg, thinks about it's graphics. There are obviously lots of reasons for the Wii selling well, but impressive graphics wasn't on the list.
Also, the Wii doesn't sell games. It's been a really puzzling issue for the industry. Considering system sales, game sales on the Wii have been less than impressive.
"The 't3h lame grafix iz deestrakting' argument seems to be ridiculous considering systems like DS, psp and the wii have been selling like hotcakes."
Another Red Herring and a straw man argument. The sales of the handheld game systems have even less to do with how people receive Wii graphics than Wii sales. I'm not sure why you're deriding my statement. I wasn't arguing anything particularly controversial. All I said was that, for some people, the dated graphics of the Wii are an issue which distract from gameplay.
"After all if ps2 "like" graphics equal game-breaking distraction then how on earth did PS2 itself do so well?"
I'm not sure you're being serious with this one, but obviously it's in part because PS2 graphics were impressive at the time. The point is that Wii games look dated.
"Its not a matter of relativity either, because wii and 360/ps3 occupy the same market at the same time and the numbers indicate that many more people play and enjoy games with ps2 level graphics."
I never said everyone would automatically hate a game with bad graphics. I just said that for some people, and a lot of people in the gamer community in particular, it's can be distracting and detract from the gameplay experience. That's basically why graphics matter in the first place.
"The people crying about the Wii's graphics aren't gamers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Yes, they are. Since when are you the authority on who is allowed to be considered a "gamer" and who isn't? Just because people place a different emphasis on graphics quality and have different expectations in that regard does not make them any less of a gamer than you. To say that if you don't like the Wiis graphics than you "aren't playing games to have fun" is just silly.
"they are buying whatever they think is the best in order to add value to their lives."
That doesn't make sense.
"Gamers play games that are fun. Period."
And some gamers don't find games that look terrible very fun to play. Period. - Zamfir, on 10/28/2009, -7/+13Nasty.
- MCA2142, on 10/28/2009, -4/+9Panzer Dragoon?
- kingmanic, on 10/28/2009, -2/+7'My computer has 10x better graphics than the Wii, and 5x better than xbox360 and PS3.'
By what metric? the # of polygons? that would be odd as the wii can push less than 1/2 of what the 360 or Ps3 can and cannot do numerous number of more modern effects on those polygons. It also pushes dramatically less pixels. So 5x better than a 360/Ps3 would be 1000+x than the wii in most metrics. As well both the 360 and PS3 are special purpose machines; unless you have a video card you got this year you will not have x5 the processing power/polygons/graphics muscle of the PS3 or 360.
'Oh wait, that was my old computer I got in 2003.'
yeah I don't think so.
'Claiming graphics as game quality'
There is some correlation. Good graphics require a combination of technical expertise, good art design, and budget. Each shows a dedication to detail which correlate to a good game. Sure you can get decent graphics cheap by licencing; you still need decent art design and budget.
'Or you can just go off and buy COD, the next generation. It may be more graphically enhanced, but your console will never be better looking than a 6 year old computer.'
That hasn't been true for a while. PC graphics have basically plateaued. The difference now is draw distance and the number of complex objects on screen. Fallout on the PS3/360 looks about as good as on a mid range PC. The difference at the top end is draw distance and extras like more believable dust and explosions. It may get more true as the PS3 and 360 age but it gets harder to spot the difference as time goes on due to diminishing return from computing power vs graphics. - mirunit, on 10/29/2009, -1/+5I can barley see what is going on, put that on a large LCD and you have disaster. 10 Years ago, most games were played on smaller SD screens. This is a different world, and Nintendo picked the first time gamers who were impressed by the novelty factor of the system - notice why 360 has a much higher attach rate. For the most part PS3/360 are great (ex. Uncharted 2, Gears 2) but in coop mode in ODST there is some serious distortion at a distance.
- Flynnz, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4snearker
that argument only applies if its a one or the other scenario. Which it is not. Truth is most gamers expect both.
To bring up another movie comparison, I think most people would agree that the visuals in the newer star wars movies are better than the older ones....and most people would also agree those older movies are in fact better. However, those older effects would not work today as our expectations are much higher, and in turn would pull us out of the experience. To me it is exactly the same thing.
Of course visuals alone dont make a game great, but what I really don't understand is where you are hearing people say that? - SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4Graphics can't be dismissed as a factor of experience.
While something like FinalFantasy VII or even FFVIII might not look the most stunning by todays standards, they still look great for what they are. Games that are meant to sell on the basis of graphic prowess alone have traditionally not aged well, but that doesn't mean that graphics don't matter.
ChronoTrigger doesn't look like a modern video game, but it still has a great artistic style that contributes to the experience. If it looked like trash, even if it was "okay" by 1994 standards, I would bet that even few people would bother going back to play it.
The point is that graphics shouldn't be the primary selling point of a game, but they should be a determent either. This game doesn't look AWFUL, but it does look dated. It's going to look even worse on a decent HDTV. In this particular case, I don't think graphics alone are a deal breaker, but coupled with the mediocre looking gameplay it just doesn't leave much to be excited about.
I mean, it's easy to cite rare exceptions of games that aged well (or at least not terribly) like ChronoTrigger, but this isn't ChronoTrigger. - Howitzer86, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4This doesn't appear to be nearly as enjoyable.
- Penpal, on 10/28/2009, -2/+5Here's what avatar looks like when you're flying and the gameplay doesn't matter as much: Good!
Here's what avatar looks like when you're playing as a navi during most of the game: *****! - SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/28/2009, -1/+4Well, now you're just exaggerating. A top of the line PC in '03 would have produced graphics very similar to this game. The hardware in the PS3 and 360 are based on GeForce 7 era technologies (with the 360 having a comparable ATI chip) making it only about three years old, not six.
Your analogies made no sense in this context. People preferring the aesthetic appeal of something over the substance doesn't necessarily lead to declaring it infallible. Also, the purpose of clothing is to be fashionable. That's the whole point, so I don't see how that supports your idea that people should be considering things in greater depth.
For me, the gameplay didn't look particularly interesting, but that's just my opinion.
I have no idea what CoD has to do with this conversation. - Pxtl, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2Looks better than I expected - better than most Wii games. Obviously harware limits them to PS2-like graphics, but they're decent PS2-like graphics.
Still, I'm quite sure I caught a glimpse of some slowdown. - heynow21, on 10/28/2009, -2/+4I'm tired of all that "it's the gameplay " argument. Half of the big releases nowadays are sequels, and if they don't get better graphics, what's left? More ***** cut scenes and new maps? Gimmicky controllers?
- cuervoman914, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2lol
- kingmanic, on 10/28/2009, -5/+7It's on the. It's not Nintendo. It's a movie tie in.
Those 3 facts guarantee the 'gameplay' 'story' and 'graphics' will be crap.
I'm an old school gamer; I recognize that 'advanced' graphics do not make a game fun. However the time and energy spend to get the graphics right ussually coincide with the time and energy spent to get the game right. As well some games are just interesting spectacle ; where the game itself is not super advance but the spectacle is an attraction all it's own (Crysis).
The wii defence that graphics don't mean anything is silly. They certainly mean something. However good art design can trump technically advanced graphics (WoW vs EQ2; Maramasa vs MadWorld). But bad art design/graphics can certainly hurt a game. Graphics are an important element of a game.
The Gameplay/Fun/innovation defence is also sort of silly for the wii. Since the majority of it's library lack those chaaracteristics. - Flynnz, on 10/29/2009, -1/+3sneaker
I hear what you are saying. But I disagree. The other games you spoke of did not have the same level of immersion as Oblivion to me, as my standards have been raised. Sure you may go back and through the ol rose glasses have fond memories of those games, but they wouldn't hold up today with games in the same genre for most people.
Its like saying Clash of the Titans style stop motion would work in movies today. Has nothing to do with how great the movie was when it came out, the truth is that technology would not hold up today. I believe it's the same for games.
The visual detail is what pulled me into the world of Oblivion (and many many others from what I hear), without it I dont see how you could possibly think it would be the same level of immersion, and experience. Could it still be good? possibly, but the same? I don't think so.
And believe me I am not triyng to act like a graphics snob. Some of my favorite games are in fact older. Hell I still bust out my Atari 2600 every now and then. But again for most gamers, I think that visual fidelity does in fact matter for a lot of games. - Flynnz, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2Yeah but at the same time they are basing it off what they can see, as they cant play the game yet. And as I stated before graphics DO matter, so it makes sense for people to complain about stuff that looks dated.
But just because people are complaining about graphics does not mean they don't care about game play, and to take that from those statements seems kinda silly to me. They are simply commenting on what they can observe about the game passively, which is the visuals, not game play. Again I am waiting for an example of people stating they don't care about game play. Which is the way you made it sound.
To put it another way that you may understand. People expecting both visuals and game play at a certain level, is totally not the same thing as saying people only care about the visuals. - Animan351, on 10/29/2009, -1/+3Ummmmm...If you get to the game play portions of that video, the graphics look better than Airbender for the Wii.
I fail to see your point. - inactive, on 10/28/2009, -5/+7Buried for pointing out that the movie trailer sucks? Oh for hell's sake. Is there anything more pathetic than the rage of upset fanboys? The movie looks like crap. Deal with it. It's nobodies fault but your own that you spent the last six months blindly repeating "Avatar is going to CHANGE THE MOVIE INDUSTRY" site-unseen, just because James Cameron told you to.
- Flynnz, on 10/29/2009, -1/+3ugh another graphics dont matter defense.
Depends on the game sir. For a lot of games they help with immersion, and dare I say are needed. Do you really think a game like Oblivion would be anywhere near the same experience with Wii level graphics?
Anyone who has played through that game will tell you, that a big part of the experience is just walking around taking in the believable world....and there are a lot of games that benefit from this level of graphical ability.
Now, if you want to talk about stylized/cartoon/puzzle style games, that's a different story. But again, lots of game types are in fact richer experiences with higher level of graphics, and effects.
Another problem with this wii defense argument is that the average wii game isn't exactly killing in the "gameplay" department either. - Flynnz, on 10/29/2009, -1/+2I say be happy with even that. Most of the wii games I play don't even seem to be up to snuff compared to the average ps2/xbox/gc game.
- sneaker98, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1Flynnz, Oblivion is actually a watered down version of previous Elder Scrolls games. While it's a gorgeous game, it does not have the depth and customization of the previous games. Skills to choose from were vastly decreased, and armour and weapon numbers took a huge hit. Specific weapon skills disappeared, and the creatures now leveled alongside your character for some reason. And, in my opinion, the main story in Daggerfall and Morrowind was much better, but that's tough to prove.
Now, I'm not saying that graphics don't matter. They do, but they should not take precedence over the actual playability of a game.
I'm also glad you brought up movies. Remember how great the visual detail in Transformers 2 was? Well: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_reven ...
Hey, look at that, despite being visually gorgeous, it sucked! Sort've helps prove that you can't simply look at the graphics, doesn't it? - vizerei, on 10/28/2009, -5/+6Sometimes, I forget how arrogant some digg users have become.
What makes just the story or just the gameplay a better judge? More than that, who are you to say why we should and shouldn't like a game? Those comments are valid opinions.
Get over yourself. - sneaker98, on 10/29/2009, -1/+2Isn't this an argument that we should have better ideas for games, as opposed to sequels and recycled *****?
- Flynnz, on 10/29/2009, -1/+2(oh and for the record I didnt care for Morrowind all that much, and going back to it after playing Oblivion made it seem even more lackluster than my first play of it)
- ReeseSV, on 10/29/2009, -1/+2Early PS2 graphics from Tekken Tag Tournament, fully real-time cutscene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbDqQtAagSA
PS2's best graphics still manage to impress today. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/28/2009, -1/+2They just don't look current gen is all. It looks like a very polished PS2 or Gamecube game.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think it's understandable that the quality stands out to people accustomed to modern technology. - Flynnz, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1"Flynnz, Oblivion is actually a watered down version of previous Elder Scrolls games. While it's a gorgeous game, it does not have the depth and customization of the previous games. Skills to choose from were vastly decreased, and armour and weapon numbers took a huge hit. Specific weapon skills disappeared, and the creatures now leveled alongside your character for some reason. And, in my opinion, the main story in Daggerfall and Morrowind was much better, but that's tough to prove."
"While it's a gorgeous game, it does not have the depth and customization of the previous games."
well all I can say is, I never felt "wanting" playing Oblivion. Honestly, there was way too much going in that game for me to ever feel like I needed more "depth". If there was any more ***** to do in that game I would have had to quit my job. lol
"and the creatures now leveled alongside your character for some reason."
This I agree with 100%...drove me nuts. Also the ability to change the game difficulty at anytime I thought was BS. I hope they take care of these issues on the next. - KyotoWolf, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1I've played Avatar (granted for about 20 minutes) and from that experience Avatar is a very good game for a movie tie-in.
- Trancers, on 10/28/2009, -4/+5the hell is Avatar?
doesn't look too bad though, for a Wii game - Flynnz, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1"Now, I'm not saying that graphics don't matter. They do, but they should not take precedence over the actual playability of a game."
I think most people would agree with this. But that still doesn't mean people don't have an expectation of visual quality as we progress the media. But again, I don't think you will find anyone who will disagree with you there.
"I'm also glad you brought up movies. Remember how great the visual detail in Transformers 2 was? Well: "
again you are trying to make it sound like I think visuals are the only thing that matters. I have never said anything like that. The point was, that if they tried to make movies today using the same stop motion tech as they did in the 60's or 70's, it wouldnt matter how great the script was, the movie would fail today (unless it was a style choice to be campy etc). Again my point is that people expect BOTH to be at a certain level today. Bringing up a movie that had great visuals and still sucks would only help your argument if I said game play (or substance in the case of a movie) doesn't matter, which again I have never stated. - TheCollective00, on 10/29/2009, -1/+2If you think it looks like crap, well, that's just like your opinion man. But there is nothing in James Cameron's track record to suggest this movie is gonna be anything less than awesome. Even Titanic is the best selling and most oscar winning movie (tied with two others) of all time, so say what you will about it. That's probably why you're getting buried.
- coondog35, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1Turok!
- alternatething, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0The movie is based on the animated series, Avater: The Last Airbender. i lvoed watching it when i was younger.
- master69better, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1Looks like they started working on this game for the original Xbox right after Titanic, totally makes Halo 2 graphics look weak.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/28/2009, -3/+3So, what you're saying is, you didn't play Arkham Asylum?
Not a movie tie in per se, but proof positive that games based on popular IP don't have to be garbage. The same goes for the Spiderman games as far as I recall.
It's true that a lot of movie tie in games are crap, but that's usually because they're an afterthought. They're merchandising as apposed to a stand alone product. I've not seen evidence that is the case here. - iwodaveh, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1WOW!!!!!
- Animan351, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1Wow, it's like you read my post when there were only around fifteen of them in here, and the wrote it out again in a different way five minutes after me. Way to go! I'm flattered you thought I deserved such redundancy.
- sneaker98, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1SpeedSteamBoat, I'm not dismissing that graphics are a factor in the experience. That would be silly! But they do, however, need to take a backseat to the actual playability factors of a game - what good is beauty if a game handles like a U-Haul truck?
- inactive, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1My guess is that you still own a copy of "E.T., the Extra Terrestrial" for the Atari 2600.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is