How does Mario Galaxy look better than most PS3 and 360 titles?

How does Mario Galaxy look better than most PS3 and 360 titles?

Game's not even in HD, how the fuck did they make it look so good?

Mario galaxy has more than 3 colors that aren't over saturated

Pic in OP is emulated obviously

Art style is more important than graphical fidelity. Just look at Silent Hill 3.

Because art style >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphic fidelity.

This

I would hope this would be obvious to everyone.

Art style, Nintendo tends to go with art styles that can run on lower end hardware at higher framerates instead of hyper realism. Not a fan in the least bit of modern Nintendo but I at least give them credit for targeting 60FPS in most games instead of falling for the 30FPS meme.

But why can we never seem to get artstyle AND graphical fidelity? When was the last time a game had a striking artstyle and impressive graphics for the time?

That looks like shit though.

Horizon Zero Dawn

The game may be are slightly more polished Ubisoft open-world shitfest, but it looks very beautiful.

How would you go about making it look better? Hypothetically.

Nintendo's first party Wii titles were made with HD assets and optimized to run at a lower resolution on the Wii. It's why so many of Nintendo's Wii games look gorgeous when their full power is unlocked on an emulator and could pass as PS3/X360 games.

Because it's a 2 way street user. If you're going to art style, the odds 99% you are moving away from graphic fidelity which by nature demands you move towards a more 'realistic' style.

Good art direction mixed with evergreen cartoony style.

Games with a high enough budget to get that fidelity will generally go after a safer, more generic art style, you'll alienate less people with something they're familiar with.

why all nintendo games have excessive fresnel shading?

The two work in concert with each other, and style inevitably overshadows fidelity when done right. Consider: do you really think Super Mario Galaxy's style would have been possible on the N64? Of course not; because the N64 lacked the graphical fidelity to pull it off. I'd say that BoTW is another good example of style and fidelity working in concert. I'm pretty sure that game would have looked ugly as sin were it not in HD because it would just look like an blurry mess.

Why would you waste ressources, time, manpower and money on pumping more polygons into the models (factor in the diminishing returns) if the game is already looking good due to its artstyle?

Metro, I guess?

>flat models
>low res textures
>better

>How do Nintendo games look better than PS4/Xbone titles?
ftfy fampai

art style is k i n g

Gotta agree honestly. A more powerful console would've done the concept behind Mario Galaxy all sorts of justice better
>Those low res flowers with jaggies on the rounded tips
>Flowers are totally 2d, don't move around as you walk through them
>NO pollen floating in the air, flowers blowing in the wind or anything to add a little extra pizzaz to it
>Space is in the background is a flat texture
>Not having the nebulas as particle effects moving around and in 3D
>Not even having the stars staggered a bit or something to give space a feeling of depth
>Peach looks awkward and rigid
The Star and Mario are pretty much golden and would just need an upres and increase in poly count to match any other changes. But there's definitely a lot that's lacking IMO.

I mean sure but you know the Wii's processor couldn't handle those, I don't think it has to do with "graphics". The artstyle, as many have said, holds up even today and there's a reason people see WW HD and still find it absolutely beautiful to look at

>I mean sure but you know the Wii's processor couldn't handle those
That's kinda the point. Nintendo's style would be elevated to insane height if they had never ditched having real hardware

>1 animation per pokemon move
>even tiny basic attacks like pound, ember and bubble looked aesthetic
This is how Pokemon should look like in the current year

Nintendo has to give in to the hardware race or they will be porting games from console to console forever

Because that's being emulated on PC.

Since developing HD games are expensive, while developing Wii and Gamecube games are cheap, and Wii and Gamecube become HD when played on emulator, why don't they just develop 8th gen games with 6th gen graphics, but then put some emulator technology inside the consoles? That way we'd get low development costs with high quality graphics at the same time

CURRENT
YEAR
seriously though
>Pokémon Stadium 1 had Blastoise shooting Hydro Pump from his cannons
>gen 6 can't be arsed to have that from Blastoise or his Mega, be it Hydro Pump or Hydro Cannon
I fucking hate Gamefreak. (the GC games were made by Genius Sonority)

Sup Forumsstupid questions thread

People will be saying the same thing for PS3 and 360 titles when RPCS3 and Xenia get to where Dolphin is now.

3d flowers
more varied flora
anti aliasing

>Nintendo's first party Wii titles were made with HD assets
What does that mean, exactly?

Fuck I wish we got more Colosseum/XD games.

We're gonna have mario odyssey, just give it time.

The non emulated version looks good as well. They simply know the art of aesthetic. You don't need very powerful hardware for games to look good. Of course that usually fucks third party potential right in its dirty crusty cooter.

>XD
and here
we
go

We're clearly not since the games models and textures look worse than 3D Worlds.

Shit tier animations ruin it

>XD
Fuark YAS, bro!!! 0__o

>XD
You should go back.

3D World is just a series of small levels, with Odyssey from what I hear it's huge as Sunshine.

I disagree OP, some early Xbox 360 games like Halo and Dead Rising 1 look great as well. It's just that over time game devs got super reliant on post processing, motion blur and bloom everywhere, and they love a "realistic" graphics style that ages poorly.

Am I the only one who Upvoted :)

I dont know how them downgrading the graphical fidelity in order to accommodate the games larger scope is supposed to be "Artstyle AND graphical fidelity"

Horizon Zero Dawn is one of the ugliest games I've ever seen. It has no artstyle at all.

>3D World is just a series of small levels, with Odyssey from what I hear it's huge as Sunshine.
is knowing this supposed to make the visuals better?

Good art direction.

Because you're emulating it.
It looks like shit on the Wii.

>XD

its fall and summer is still here

No, they were insulting after the two Stadium games. Instead of getting tons of local MP modes and lots of connectivity with the GB games, we get a half-asked, neutered story-mode no one asked for. You could only register ONE FUCKING TEAM from the GBA games at a time, and you had to leave your GBA connected the whole fucking time. And to top that off, genius Sonoritty to reuse the same N64 models in both GC games AND PBR on the fucking Wii.

>we get story-mode no one asked for
how delusional do you have to be to make a statement like this?

>Posting an emulated image

halo 3, doom 4

it just looks like flat flowers on sticks what the fuck? if you are gawking at the backgrounds, even a 2003 game did those better. and yes, this background is made with 3d models, they scale with resolution and look great

What was good about them? They were extremely limited when compared to the actual handheld games. People wanted a full-on console Pokemon RPG, the same game just with modern visuals, not a watered-down, neutered version of it. You could only catch certain Pokemon at certain times, and the overworld was just a fast-travel screen.

I said nothing regarding the quality of the campaigns, I've never played them, I'm simply pointing out that saying no one wanted a single-player-focused console entry in the series, something people are still clamoring for to this day, is ridiculous.

you guys are idiots, that's the name of the game

I said no one wanted or asked for what we got, which was a limited, story-driven Pokemon game rather than a straight-up translation of the handheld RPGs, which is what people wanted and asked for. I didn't see SM get much praise for focusing on their story either, that's not what Pokemon is about.

get this hothead outta here

has anybody tried jumping off this platform

I've always wanted to see if mario goes to the underside but that's a lot of work to redo

same with the perfect run in galaxy

lurk moar, newfag

ironically, NOW you deserve a "go back to redit" response

>Doom 4
>art style

I would say paper mario colour splash but I hate that game

protip: a cartoony or low-detail art style does not necessarily mean the graphical effects being used are not impressive on a technical level.

breath of the wild

it looks great though and will in 30 years

>What was good about them? They were extremely limited when compared to the actual handheld games.
>No, they were insulting after the two Stadium games.

You can't be seriously saying that the portable games had good campaigns while in the same breath complaining about the campaigns of Colosseum and Gales. And the limited pool of pokés increased the challenge, and iirc you also couldn't grind in Colosseum either. Probably the only Pokémon game I remember not being a cakewalk.

doubly ironically, i posted that ironically to bait this exact response, so i believe it is YOU who should go back

>looks great

That scene looks like the end boss area of Phantasy Star Online.

Huh.

its coming to nintendo switch mate you dont have to be such a contrarian sperg

(You)

the original doom has a more cohesive artstyle than doom 4

It means textures r gud, screen is bad

m-MASAKA

now you're learning

This must be the most stupid post I've seen on Sup Forums this year

Silent Hill 3 had very good good graphics user, I don't agree

I can’t believe SMG is almost 10 years old now.. one of the best games ever. I think I’ll replay it again before Odyssey comes out.

>You can't be seriously saying that the portable games had good campaigns
No, they didn't, and they didn't try to, that was my point, you simpering shitwit.

...

i disagree, the texture quality is extremely varying, enemies such as imps looking like complete shit comparatively to even zombiemen. and cohesive? the textures on zombiemen dont even represent a weapon in the fucking game. most textures look really bad, with the only memorable ones being ugly blue fire and shit people prefer to circlejerk about. the best textures are of course the less vibrant. and the level geometry is simple which i consider just fine but not necessarily better than truly detailed environments

>the GC games provide an actual campaign
>this makes them worse
I'm so lost

nintendo machines being weak, games don't rely on textures but more on colored polygons
when emulated, the polygons are clearer, seeing a better suspension of disbelief than seeing pixels in a texture

Princess peach makes everything look better, user

Its been Nintendo's strong point to throw as much color and style at problem to overcompensate for its graphical short comings like they did with the SNES and that chip.

>People wanted a full-on console Pokemon RPG, the same game just with modern visuals, not a watered-down, neutered version of it

>I said no one wanted or asked for what we got, which was a limited, story-driven Pokemon game rather than a straight-up translation of the handheld RPGs

The handheld games, until SM or arguably XY, didn't focus on their story. That's my point, you brain-dead, mouth-breathing mongoloid, they didn't TRY to tell you a story because that wasn't the fucking intent, not having much of a story was a GOOD THING for the games. The GC games kind of sucked because that's exactly what they tried to do, tell a story, and in-turn dumbed-down the usual mechanics and features present in the handheld games. So AGAIN, people didn't really want a more story-focused, more limited Pokemon RPG, they wanted the handheld games with better visuals.

>That's my point, you brain-dead, mouth-breathing mongoloid,
C'MON now, there's no need to get VIOLENT

>The GC games kind of sucked because that's exactly what they tried to do, tell a story, and in-turn dumbed-down the usual mechanics and features present in the handheld games.
I disagree, I think the story was passable and the restrictions enhanced the experience, making the game harder, and I liked every battle being 2v2

Style trumps raw power

It was just a limited version of what the handheld games already offered. I don't care if the game is a little harder or not, it's just got less to it. Not being able to freely travel and catch Pokemon isn't what I want out of a Pokemon game, and I think the sales for both titles relative to what the handheld games sold, even taking install base into account, also reflect that, though that's obviously just anecdotal. I didn't get the Stadium 3 I wanted, nor did I get a proper Pokemon RPG either. I'd forgive the sub-par single-player stuff if the games also still retained most of what Stadium had, but that was neutered even worse. One registered team at a time, fewer options for pretty much everything, like two or three modes to battle in, everyone who wanted to play needed a GBA and cable, it was just awful.

There is more to making art timeless than relying on punchy colors. See the picture.

Nintendo is great at this. So was PS2 era Konami.

You're late to the party user.

TRUMP?!?!?
I BELIEVE YOU MEAN GRUNTCHFPGL
GO BACK TO /R/LEDONALP YOU ALT RITE BABY WHITE MALE V IS A LEFTIST BOARD AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN

>Not being able to freely travel and catch Pokemon isn't what I want out of a Pokemon game,
even if you don't like it, and most people do want that cakewalk with catching random wild pokémon more than they want a more finely tuned single player mode with some challenge, that doesn't mean that it's better, it just means that more people like that formula

but right after that you claim to want better multiplayer, which is competitive battling, which is as far from the portable games' single player mode as possible, so I'm lost again, but I agree that multiple team registering should have existed, Stadium did it properly years earlier, didn't the Wii game do it properly at least? I don't remember it well

I myself got tired of the roam around the world getting overpowered and fucking wreck these shitty trainers that don't even carry 6 pokémens around on gen 3, but hey, if that's your cup of tea, enjoy it, they never stopped making those (another reason that makes me question you getting mad at the GC games existing)

looks like mgs3 was just in time for the brown era of video games

WoFF does both to a certain degree.

Well yeah, it takes place in the jungles of Russia, but there is a richness to the colors in the game. Some scenes, like the flower field, and the Fury's death are downright brilliant.

whoa...

but really, MGS2 and 3 were mastercrafts of their devs, probably the best looking games on a technical level on that generation alongside RE4

A final fantasy spinoff I'm guessing from the behemoth?

It's gotten to the point where I'm vastly more interested in the spinoffs than the main games

I played Little Big Planet and liked it's style. It's been a while and I haven't touched any of the newer ones, but they could pull off high detail in their style. Pikmin 3 also looked pretty good.