Wii Warm Up: No need for killer graphics
by Alisha Karabinus 
{ Oct 26th 2008 at 10:35AM }
Graphics are still a pickable bone for some Wii owners (and more Wii detractors), but not all games need great graphics. In fact, with some, higher quality graphics may even be a slight detriment (Beautiful Katamari's slow image-loading comes to mind). There are plenty of games with such distinctive (yet simplistic) art styles that rely more on artistic flow than they do on pixel count. On the flip side, too many games spoil their gorgeous graphics in filter overloads.What comes to mind when we bring up those moments when looks don't matter? Wii games, games for other systems -- anything is go here. In fact, with the frequency of ports among Wii games, maybe titles from other systems are best discussed on this topic!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ninbrendo @ Oct 26th 2008 11:16AM
Cubivore!
Bowser the Baptist @ Oct 26th 2008 11:59AM
De Blob comes to mind, seeing as I was just playing the game this morning before work. It really is a wonderful looking game which exudes a type of fun that is so seriously lacking in the more celebrated blockbusters. I'd be really sore if in a few weeks the various blog sites report that it's only sold 10 copies.
Without wanting to elaborate, here's a couple graphically memorable games: Jade Cocoon, echochrome, Patapon, TWEWY, Hotel Dusk, the Paper Mario series, Space Invaders Extreme, JSR/F, Okami, as well as many more I couldn't be arsed to name.
But I get confused sometimes. What's the difference between art stylisation and graphics? Should us as gamers praise the graphical accomplishments of the Wind Waker in the same way as Doom 3? Should we be more impressed by one style over the other?
lobotomies4free @ Oct 26th 2008 1:51PM
woot for the patapon!
Echochrome was really something too
lorddshadow @ Oct 26th 2008 2:38PM
yeah no doubt. patapon had me completely amazed. simple can be nice. it just has to be done well.
Mr Khan @ Oct 26th 2008 12:26PM
In some cases, style over technology does work quite well. NiGHTS and Okami to name two that i can see right in my Wii collection right now
However, that doesn't justify sheer laziness, as in No More Heroes' case. Love it to death, but that overworld just looked horrid, as did other things.
Josh @ Oct 26th 2008 12:27PM
Graphics do matter, always. As they are typically half the entire output of a game (sound's the other half), they absolutely matter (well, except for sound-only games, like that Kenji Eno one, but that's different).
But as Mega Man 9 has shown us, "bad" graphics are not actually "bad" at all, but just a different style. Even though the graphics on old systems were dictated by hardware, it doesn't make them any less good. They're still just a style.
So, it comes down to personal preference. Do you like photorealistic graphics? Do you like low resolution bright color graphics? Do you like cel shaded graphics? etc.
Personally, I prefer whatever graphics style goes best with a particular game, on a case-by-case basis. Whereas Gears of War is best with a photorealistic style, Mega Man 9 is best with a low resolution bright color "old school" style (though I'd like to come up with a better word than "old school").
And even in the realm of photorealistic graphics, it could be said that the Wii isn't as powerful as the other systems and should stay away from those kinds of graphics, but even there, I have a friend that actually *prefers* less realism, as it were, in his photorealistic graphics, so in that sense, he would actually prefer the Wii's attempt at photorealism over the PS3's or 360's.
Again, (as with all things with games and entertainment in general), it's all just personal preference.
CJLopez @ Oct 26th 2008 11:32PM
Sorry, did you just stated that Megaman 9 has bad graphics???
What are you? stupid?
Those are 8 bit graphics, you can't expect amazing graphics from a 8 bit game. The game was made on a old nostalgic form, but they are not bad graphics.
Bad graphics are what most Wii Games are suffering nowadays, but you can't compare 8-bit graphics whit graphics of this era.
Please, before you try to state a good comment, try to use the needed examples.
Megaman 9 didn't showed us that bad graphics aren't everything, just that games don't need to be so amazing on many aspects, graphics in here to, to be awesome
Josh @ Oct 27th 2008 12:27AM
You completely missed my point, but that should become obvious when your text takes on a nice, light shade of gray.
kaoleidescope @ Oct 27th 2008 12:33AM
CJLopez, he's not saying Megaman 9 has bad graphics at all -- hence the quotation marks. He's using it as an extreme example of the irrelevance of graphics and saying that style and fit are more important than pure looks.
time-space @ Oct 27th 2008 1:19AM
It is wrong to call another human being stupid. Yes, style does play a huge role on how appealing the games final product is. However I prefer to see technicians and artist in collaboration, bringing the best of both worlds.
Josh @ Oct 27th 2008 1:37AM
Ahh, just realized. This isn't Joystiq, so your text won't become gray... Well, people will still be able to see the stars. :)
Josh @ Oct 27th 2008 1:39AM
Argh. ><
So I guess text *does* become light gray with downvoting, even off of Joystiq.
Although it *does not* become darker with upvoting on Joystiq's sister sites.
OK, got it now.
samfish @ Oct 26th 2008 12:48PM
God Hand! Looks like Hell, plays like Heaven!
Catz 2 looks like junk, but I find it surprisingly fun.
Mario Kart Wii looks like shit, but it's fairly fun to play...although it could be a lot funner.
Mr Khan @ Oct 26th 2008 9:01PM
Hey, i caught this comment of yours on GoNintendo:
"Ahh fuck. Not again. IGN does this every generation, it seems like. Right around the mid-way point, Matt turns against Nintendo and turns into a big bitch about everything."
Really? I've never really followed IGNintendo, though i've never liked Matt C, either. Has he done this?
Roto13 @ Oct 26th 2008 12:52PM
Well, when I played Metal Gear Solid 4 and Soul Calibur IV, I felt like I'd enjoy them just as much if they had been last-gen games with last-gen graphics. Also, if given the choice between the PS360 version of Resident Evil 5 and a Wii version with RE4-style graphics but Wiimote controls, I'd pick the Wii version.
Adam @ Oct 26th 2008 1:27PM
here's the thing, whatever style of graphics being attempted need to be competently achieved. Whether it's 2D, 3D, cell-shading, retro, etc., game companies need to actually pull-off the style well enough instead of giving us these half-ass versions. This whole lo-res/lo-poly thing isn't cutting it. That's why Mega Man 9 still looks good today. It 100% completely accomplishes what it set out to do graphically.
Instead, we get games that look like PC visuals from the early 2000s and last-gen ports. Honestly, graphics for the Wii would be so much better if it weren't for the PS2 still being developed for. All of those PS2 to Wii multi-platform efforts really screw us over. It seems as if we're just playing Gamecube titles with motion controls.
Take two games that set out to achieve simliar results. Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 and Brothers In Arms: Double Time. Both games are essentially the same idea, but one looks terrible and the other doesn't. It's a total lack of effort. Eventhough, Mario Galaxy looks great on the Wii but weaker compared to 360/PS3 titles, it still works because it competently pulled off it's style of visuals.
jerem_tb @ Oct 26th 2008 10:14PM
Well said!! Multi-Platform sucks and give so bad games! But from a delevopper's point of view, what choice do they have? Nintendo has set itself apart and enjoy the glory, but it has its downside...
Ski7908 @ Oct 26th 2008 1:30PM
Well I owned a 360 and the wii converted me. And I wonder way its allways about graphics. Answer the 360,PS3 owners always attack us wii owners with that. But next time one of them attacks you ask them. So whats so next gen about yours where are those next gen physx. Or what about the cell processer and all the goodies it was going to show us. Can any of you really say that non of these games could have been made on a ps2. And when someone says portal kindly point out that it is coming to wii. Or how about fall of man and how the big boss fight would not fly on lastgen tech. Remind them sonys own god of war 2 had some huge bosses on the ps2. And remember a Wii is a bit more powerful than a ps2. Point is we still have a lot to see from wii yet. And lasty was the xbox not running some of it's games in 720p. And even if the wii is just on par with it. Well you know just a thought.
Roto13 @ Oct 26th 2008 1:50PM
"And when someone says portal kindly point out that it is coming to wii."
what
time @ Oct 26th 2008 7:01PM
Portal isn't coming out on Wii.
We can dream though.
Ghetto Princess, Alice @ Oct 26th 2008 1:45PM
Note to Joystiq: Reply button on comment system doesn't work. Fix please. Thank you.
-Mr Khan
"However, that doesn't justify sheer laziness, as in No More Heroes' case. Love it to death, but that overworld just looked horrid, as did other things."
I think Suda 51 did that on purpose. I think he was making fun of western gamers obsession with open world sandbox games. For me, I hate open world do whatever you want sandbox kind of games. But i loved No More Heroes. *Shrugs shoulders*
Mr Khan @ Oct 26th 2008 2:39PM
I've heard others say that about NMH too, that it was ugly in a deliberate way. However, i feel that he could have made it deliberately ugly in a way that didn't make it resemble the earliest of Dreamcast efforts. He could've chose ugliness through style, rather than ugliness through technology (or lack thereof)
Nigeria @ Oct 26th 2008 4:48PM
Yeah, I used to believe that too.
At release, caught up in the hype, a friend of mine proposed that theory, and I made it work for me. Now, having isolated myself from the game for several months, then replaying it, I can see the fallacy.
But I still find the deficiencies charming, in the same way I'd forget that a pub band messed up a crucial guitar cord.
Daryl @ Oct 26th 2008 2:09PM
To start out, Twilight Princess is an example of an efficiently programmed game that uses good art but not a lot of processing power. It looks amazing, but is capable of running on a gamecube. It proves that having a massive amount of mathematical processing calculations is not the only way to make a game look good. Good art can also work, and if used efficiently, it can look good even on a gamecube, as the wii version is based on the gamecube version.
But aside from this, I believe it does take longer to appreciate the gameplay of a game than the graphics. For example, I recently went back and started playing the gamecube master's quest of the ocarina of time (which is really an N64 game). When I first started playing, it did strike me how much games have changed. But after 10-15 minutes of playing, the gameplay became interesting enough that I no longer cared. I had a similar experience with the 2006 Red Steel. It had graphics that were not impressive, but I knew if I stuck with it, eventually the game would become interesting. Granted that game could have used some polishing but its still a good game if you get over its flaws.
As for Megaman 9, on the wii it has the graphics that are most true to the original compared to that of the 360 and PS3.
I believe developers have limited resources and they have to make choices in most circumstances. Online gameplay and high definition graphics have received so much attention and dedication that other parts of games have taken a hit. Look at how many shooters are released on the high definition consoles. In my opinion, shooters are the most simplistic game to make in terms of creativity. It doesn't take much imagination to design a shooter. The people who dedicate all their energy and resources into better graphics and online play have no time to dedicate themselves to actually coming up with good ideas. High definition graphics don't come for free, they take a development effort. And because of this, you get games that look great, but really change the concept of how games are played.
lorddshadow @ Oct 26th 2008 9:09PM
actually the ps3 and 360 versions are more true because of the flicker options but whatever...
ChromeAlchemist @ Oct 26th 2008 9:19PM
man i agree completely with most of what you say.
The development time that takes up all of this 'next gen' (ugh) graphics crap eats in to the actual game development time, and then you get average games that look pretty.
but to be honest, all of this graphical output nonsense never was about before in such force, its almost like people care about good graphics because sony and microsoft tell them to care. I mean crysis looks better than anything, and i've never heard any public declaration of that.
anyhu, give me stylised graphical games over photorealism any day. the immersion factor dissapears when i realise im holding a piece of plastic, so realistic graphics don't do it for me. and plus its the reason why games take like 3 years to make instead of 1 and a half to 2
P.S NMH2 FTW
P.P.S Fuck Ubisoft
Daryl @ Oct 26th 2008 9:50PM
I hate to be cliche, but the high processing power of high definition consoles is enough rope to hang itself. Because the processing power is higher, and I paid for it, I want to get the most out of it. But then gameplay suffers, because high definition graphics are hard work.
The wii has a shorter rope, so it isn't going to hang its own gameplay due to a disproportionate focus on graphics. It almost helps people budget their time, the fact that the wii has limited the processing power. Then they'll focus on gameplay and controls instead, which is really better for gamers of my taste.
ChrisCanberg @ Oct 26th 2008 11:34PM
I've always felt as if the entire gaming market is forgetting about the Wii. I look at GameTrailers and all I see are videos for Call of Duty 5 (because thats what it is), Gears 2, Halo 3 Recon (stupidest fucking move ever), Fallout 3, and the list goes on. They're all in a sense the posterboys for the gaming industries. Halo (regardless of its fanbase) continues to claim itself as the be all end all of FPS gaming, which isn't much of an accomplishment because any schmuck can make a good FPS game if they know how, it's honestly that easy to be unoriginal with that genre.
Nintendo always gets the dull edge of the sword when cutting into the gaming world. Everybody thinks of Zelda and Mario when Nintendo is mentioned. They think that those two are the only franchises Nintendo is known for. Everybody asks "where's Mario? where's Zelda?" when in the mainstream gaming world, you have 1000 twenty second teasers that do nothing but show a character. Then the developer or more importantly the console forces you to take notice and forces the viewers to build such an unsubstantial hype that can't possibly get answered.
Nintendo's strategy to fully announce a game close to release and with something to show is the smart way to go. We've known about a new Wii Zelda for a while now, even before E3. Yet we've heard nothing about it, and probably won't until (maybe) GDC 09 or the most probable E3 09. When there's something to show and it will be released within the next year. That way we know it isn't rushed.
Nintendo's honestly the only company who cares about how they make their games feel to the player. There are two other companies that can do this. Those are Square Enix, and the company that made Shadow of the Colossus. God of War (while I had fun with it) is just a game for the thickheaded douchebag who loves to see blood blood and more blood. Halo is for the online retards who love trying to be cool. Zelda's for a more traditional gamer who truly wants to remember why they picked up a controller in the first place. Mario is for the feel-good care-free vibe you get when he jumps into the air and shouts his first "wahoo!" of Super Mario Galaxy.
To keep this post within the topic, looks come last. If you want to make any touches to help the detail, do it after you've gotten down the gameplay first. Nintendo has this strategy fine-tuned to a tee.
Daryl @ Oct 26th 2008 2:14PM
Correction, I forgot to add a negative to my last sentence. It should read:
"And because of this, you get games that look great, but DON'T really change the concept of how a game is played."
rouroniJohn @ Oct 26th 2008 2:32PM
i want Katamari Damacy Wii
rouroniJohn @ Oct 26th 2008 2:33PM
Now!!!!!
Orchitis @ Oct 27th 2008 4:05AM
Me too! Seeing that picture pop up on my Yahoo page had me all excited. And for nothing! God damn you, Wii Fanboy!!!
raindog @ Oct 26th 2008 2:55PM
The original Katamari is a perfect example of substance over style. I hope that when and if a Wii Katamari game gets made, they use the Wii's extra cycles (versus the PS2) to add lots more objects, not just make prettier objects. Elebits was pretty much the same way, and I hope they don't make the same mistakes with it as Namco did with the Katamari sequel.
I understand why graphics whores feel the way they do, but I think the first Zork game is no worse now than it was 28 years ago. I think the original Doom succeeded more because of its gameplay than because of its groundbreaking graphics. I think Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time are every bit the same awesome games now that they were 10 years ago (even though I myself only discovered them 5 years ago), and the latest turn-based adventure, FPS, Mario game or Zelda game may have added more complexity but really haven't exceeded their predecessors in the fun department.
In some cases, the newer games really are more fun and break new gameplay ground, but I would go so far as to say it's almost never graphics that make a game fun.
Jace @ Oct 26th 2008 3:15PM
Earthbound is a game that uses deceptively simplistic graphics very creatively. The crudely psychedelic battles in Earthbound are one of the most distinctive visual elements in gaming.
joey @ Oct 26th 2008 3:58PM
i just want to see some of those awesome 3rd party games that come out on all the other systems!!!!
Jacksons @ Oct 26th 2008 4:30PM
I like clean graphics. Whether it be something gorgeous like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, or clean and simple like Mega Man 9. It's just lazy garbage that irritates me, like this : "Cruis'n" for Wii http://static4.filefront.com/images/jyoqykujlu.jpg
I will say my favorite games visually were the 3 Sly Cooper games on PS2. The style in them really impressed me.
Concerning the Wii, all I can say is I wish it looked a bit better on HDTVs. Really a bummer making the jump from an SDTV and seeing the PS3 and 360 come to life while the Wii in my opinion actually looks worse. Sure, the SDTV still works, but the home theater system isn't hooked up to it. Blah.
intro94 @ Oct 26th 2008 5:23PM
Graphics matter but is not a 50-50 , is just the presentation(10 percent at best).Like a pretty cake.if its pretty, you might be more enticed to eat it, but if it tastes bad ,its pretty cover wont fool you anymore.If it looks bad, but tastes really good, you stop minding the looks.
Example: There is not a single game that had its pretty graphics maintain steady sales.Not a single one.
There are 2 games that are among top of their class despite their horrid looks, looks that turn people of but eventually they accepted them and became hooked, LIKE TIBIA(1997 game)which still now is played by more people that most modern korean MMRPGS, or the awful looking runescape.
Mg4 isnt succesful because its graphics, but gameplay, but it was important for it to keep the good graphics to enhance the experience.Same goes for gears of war.
If mg4 graphics were like Mg3 (ps2)it would have dissapointed a bit but still had been succesful.However, if you have ps3 you are pushed to have good graphics or you will be critizised.
Ng0zT @ Oct 27th 2008 1:05AM
TETRIS
no need for 3d and if it is then NO GLOSS/BUMP MAPPING!
CJLopez @ Oct 26th 2008 11:40PM
I'm more of a gameplay guy than a graphics wore
I must confess, FarCry 2 is making me eyes, but its not only because of the graphics (which are awesome), but, there are a lot of things (the fact that a gun keeps on malfunctioning the more you use it, man I loved that) that are making me buy this game, but I want to get all the beautifull graphics, so I'm taking the ps3 over the PC version, and believe, 'll hate the gameplay (fps only on pc or Wii for me) but the rest of the game will amend my hate.
Still, as someone stated before, 'll go for a RE5 with RE4 wii controls instead of the candy eye of the ps3
GarfunkGrin @ Oct 27th 2008 4:20AM
Interesting topic, certainly one that gamers talk about.
Anyways, I thought I'd chime in that as a Wii owner - and also a 360 owner - graphics is a major sore point on this console. To be the weakest of the group doesn't necessarily mean much (PS2 in the previous gen), but to be so by such a huge margin has left the Wii backward.
When Nintendo gambled on their strategy, they made it clear that they wanted to keep the console price low and accessible - this they did. Its now been a couple years though, and Wii prices haven't stayed competitive like the 360 and the PS3. I realize that Nintendo's churning profits, so they want to milk that for all its worth, but it's still a bum deal for us consumers.
Bottom line is that not a single Wii player would complain if their hardware was bumped to at least "near" PS/Xbox levels. And for goodness sakes, a little harddrive wouldnt hurt either ;)
Evan @ Oct 27th 2008 2:01PM
It's not just about keeping console prices low, it's about keeping game development costs low.
Many of the previous generation's most innovative games (like Katamari) barely got the green-light, and would never have been made at current high-definition development costs. Many of the Wii's most innovative games were unproven, and would have been too big a risk for publishers to swallow at high-definition development costs.
Of course I'd love to play many of my favourite Wii games in high definition, but the sad reality is, many of those games would never have been created if the Wii had "near PS3/360 specs". I'll take the games in standard definition verses not having those games at all.
Eric Koch @ Oct 30th 2008 11:17PM
I think that logic is slightly flawed, because one could just as easily say that you don't even know it but you've missed out on your potential favorites...
Brucie B @ Oct 27th 2008 8:10AM
LOL @ No need for Killer Graphics, Keep Telling yourself that.
*Get a HDTV... Sorry 480i = SUCKAGE Plain & Simple!
Daryl @ Oct 27th 2008 10:14AM
If the wii lowered the price, the would sell even faster.
Nintendo can't cope with the demand as it is. As it is, these things are flying off the shelves. Lower the prince and you are asking for shortages.
I would "mind" if graphics become the sole focus of developers, to the point where Nintendo started to resemble Sony and especially Microsoft in its gameplay.
Evan @ Oct 27th 2008 1:48PM
High definition still helps non-realistic graphic styles.
Lego StarWars and Indiana Jones benefit from high definition - it helps bring out the individual lego pieces.
Echochrome's graphics benefit from high definition - it makes it "feel" more like pencil drawings on paper.
I think Megaman 9's graphics would have benefited from high definition - if they applied filters to simulate the phosphors of an old CRT television (this is available in PC MAME emulation).
It's like the movie 300 - the movie looks fairly normal on DVD, you need the high-definition Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) to see the artificial film-grain that was purposefully added.
Eric Koch @ Oct 31st 2008 12:41AM
this is very true. Its plain and simple in my opinion: people who say they wouldnt want HD wii's are in fact saying "I wouldnt want to change anything else about the console to have HD".
I think the real story is that Nintendo suffered during the gamecube era, where their console was relatively powerful. They were still hurting when they developed the Wii, and they gambled on HD being a non-factor.
In a sense they weren't wrong, but they weren't right - HD isnt essential right now, evidence by the wii's popularity. The Wii is however, struggling in software attachment - surely a statement to the fact that dev's are having to code games purposely for the wii's inferior capabilities.
What will be really interesting will be to see if nintendo preemptively releases a wii 2 ahead of the next generation...