Wii U graphics.

#71DarkZV2BetaPosted 11/6/2012 11:44:45 PM
Shamrock99 posted...
^^ I can play the high quality screen shot vs. low quality screen shot game too!

RIDDICK:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/919755_20040525_screen002.jpg

VS.

CONDEMNED:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2005/250/926309_20050908_screen009.jpg

or

NINJA GAIDEN BLACK:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2005/137/928401_20050518_screen004.jpg

VS.

CONDEMNED:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2005/292/reviews/926309_20051020_screen004.jpg



Really. Not only is the Condemned screen shot you posted much higher resolution than the screen shots you picked for RE4 and Riddick, but the game itself was designed for and natively runs in HD resolutions (720p). Meanwhile, RE4 and Riddick were designed for and run in 480p - we're talking Wii resolution vs. 360 resolution here!

If you were to take the Condemned graphics engine and design it to run natively at 480p, then compare it to other 480 resolution games like Riddick, RE4, or Ninja Gaiden Black, you'd see that without the resolution jump the graphics are actually quite close!

Again, if RE4 was created to run at a native 720p and Condemned was designed to run natively at 480p, you would see that these games, although running on hardware drastically different in power from each other, look quite the same in quality:

RE4:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2011/207/625524_20110727_screen003.jpg

VS

CONDEMNED:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2005/320/reviews/926309_20051117_screen029.jpg

Without the resolution jump in game or screen shot, you'd be hard pressed to find a big difference in polygon count and texture mapping quality.


Except that your skewed examples fail to demonstrate your point.
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
#72Shamrock99Posted 11/6/2012 11:52:38 PM
^^ Sorry, I don't have screen shot capturing devices. Had to use screen shots I could find here on GameFAQs. But you get the point of what I'm saying.
---
http://i.imgur.com/Fx1qb.gif http://tinyurl.com/cbrjfhk http://i.imgur.com/WdBGe.gif
http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat
#73DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/6/2012 11:57:52 PM
So your saying Condemned looks way better than those games but if you make Condemned look worse, it looks about the same?

I do not see the logic here. The question is, do xbox 360 games look head and shoulders above previous generations and that resolution jump made it probably one of the most noticeable generations out there.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#74brainlackPosted 11/7/2012 12:13:51 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...
knightimex posted...
VGAddict90 posted...
Is it a bad sign that the launch games for the Wii U aren't much better than PS360 games? Every system has had launch games that look better than their predecessors.


Do you not understand the concept of diminishing returns to economic value ratio?
You want serious good graphics.
Expect to pay no less than $500 for the bare bones version.


This console scrub clearly is talking out of his ass. The Wii U doesn't look impressive because Nintendo is never that great with providing good value for hardware, but in this case, I would say a lot of the cost is being also eaten by the Tablet controller.

You are essentially running two screens at a time.

For less than $500, you can build a gaming PC that would DESTROY the Wii U. Anything the Wii U can play on Low and medium, a $500 PC could play in 1080p on high to max settings. A console could produce even more power for that price because they mass produce set hardware and that hardware is utilized much more efficiently due to it being fixed.

Diminishing returns my ass. I have a gaming laptop and it looks head and shoulders above current consoles even though those games are mostly console focused ports. When console hardware steps up, people will spend real money and tech on the next generation visuals (sad for PC gamers but engines are not build for them anymore so that is what limits how good PC games look). Expect Cryengine 2 and UE4 to bring true next generation visuals.


^this even my old pc a pentium 4 3.2 ht w/6850 can run crysis in medium but still gonna buy a ps4 and wii u if nintendo apologizes with the hype of uber graphics
---
because you like to read a sig in a sig so
I wrote a sig(inside a sig)for you to read - Brainlack
#75Shamrock99Posted 11/7/2012 10:50:36 AM(edited)
DesperateMonkey posted...
So your saying Condemned looks way better than those games but if you make Condemned look worse, it looks about the same?

I do not see the logic here. The question is, do xbox 360 games look head and shoulders above previous generations and that resolution jump made it probably one of the most noticeable generations out there.

I'm saying besides the jump from standard definition to high definition, a lot of gamers felt the move from 6th Gen graphics to 7th Gen launch title graphics was insignificant.

For example, Condemned and RE4's graphics are much closer to each other than say...

Star Fox (SNES 4th Gen):
http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/snes100/snes17.png

VS

Panzer Dragoon (Saturn 5th Gen Launch title):
http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/f/3/a/gfs_47466_2_41.jpg

or

Tekken 3 (PS1 5th Gen):
http://www.edge-online.com/wp-content/uploads/edgeonline/oldfiles/Tekken3Image.jpg

VS

SoulCalibur (DC 6th Gen Launch title):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3601/3390860109_992ae294a1.jpg

or

Batman: Return of the Joker (NES 3rd Gen):
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/320140-batman-return-of-the-joker-nes-screenshot-stage-6-2-a-forced.png


Altered Beast (Genesis 4th Gen Launch title):
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/sega_7_1.jpg

There is a pretty significant difference in those generations. The gap wasn't as big between, say, Xbox/GCN vs. 360 launch graphics.

This article is also what I'm getting at (yes, I realize their screen grabs are TERRIBLE though!):
http://www.gamespot.com/features/xbox-vs-xbox-360-do-you-really-need-hd-6140621/
---
http://i.imgur.com/Fx1qb.gif http://tinyurl.com/cbrjfhk http://i.imgur.com/WdBGe.gif
http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat
#76DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/7/2012 2:29:11 PM
Doesn't matter if its because of HD or not. The HD impressed me far more than most other generational jumps.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H