Aaah yes Fatal

Fatal Frame / Project Zero for Wii? Why, yes!

QUOTE
Tecmo has been silent about Fatal Frame for some time now, but that doesn' t mean the horror franchise has been forgotten. To the contrary, 1UP learned at Tokyo Game Show that Tecmo' s enlisted the help of Grasshopper Interactive to produce the next Fatal Frame game. And here' s the kicker: it' s for Wii.

Grasshopper will start on Fatal Frame when work on No More Heroes, recently announced for a US release via Ubisoft, has finished. Given that No More Heroes was developed on Wii, Grasshopper seems content on Nintendo' s console.

Taking photographs of ghouls has been a part of Fatal Frame since day one, so motion controls certainly make sense for the series, but the last we heard about the next Fatal Frame seemed to have Microsoft and Sony' s consoles in mind. " I already have some ideas that I' d like to do if I had more development time and a more powerful system," said Fatal Frame 3 Producer Keisuke Kikuchi all the way back in July 2005.

Then again, in 2005, no one knew Wii was going to blow up, either.

Oooh and Ys here' s a little thing you missed. Might get the attention of some people.

TimeSplitters 4 for Wii? Mmmmmaybe!

Free Radical' s David Doak has described Wii development in general as " a good thing to do" and followed that up with " I think we want to put it [TimeSplitters 4] on the Wii" , in an interview with Game Informer.

" I' m sure it' s possible to do a control scheme that works," Doak added when asked about his thoughts on developing a first-person shooter for Wii.

He went on to say he' d like to see Free Radical' s Second Sight on Wii too.

" Also, if you want to start a petition for remaking Second Sight on the Wii, I' d like to see that as well, because I think that game worked really well, [laughs] because of the manipulation stuff."

Horror games on the wii will look like this

The PSP ain' t more powerfull than the Wii, it' s your TV wich is worse than your PSP-screen. :)
But the control-mechanism is better on the PSP, than home consoles.
Afterall, only the PSP are able to give the user enough control so you can control the world (Locoroco), while all the other consoles have to settle for a characther or maybe two, if you have two controllers.. :-/

ORIGINAL: Demonoroth
The only thing they' re doing on 360 and ps3 is raise the graphical limit a bit and the physics. While still using a controller they' ve been using for so many years. Something they can do with their eyes closed.

The hardest challenge for developers right now is to make the Wii-mote work well. There' s never been anything like it before and that pushes them more than an update on graphics.

A bit? More like 50 times. LOL.

And controllers aren' t a technical boundary, it isn' t even anything that affects most developers, if you have a team of 50 people working on a game, 2 or 3 are working on controllers, the other 47 guys are getting left behind technologically by working on ancient hardware.

A bit? More like 50 times. LOL.

The current generation graphics aren' t 50 times better than last generation' s. Sure, they' re in HD now, but other than that there really isn' t much that looks mindblowingly different from last gen.

Horror games on the wii will look like this

Oh come on now. Eternal Darkness looks better than that.

I must play the first two Fatal Frames. I sure hope Sadness delivers what it promises.

I was joking Marink! The pictured game though, is the scariest game iv ever played

The current generation graphics aren' t 50 times better than last generation' s. Sure, they' re in HD now, but other than that there really isn' t much that looks mindblowingly different from last gen.

There are way too many different things that contribute to performance, so it' s impossible to quantify the difference with a single number. However, I think we can agree that this gen is a shit load better than the last. It' s easy to say that besides HD there isn' t much difference but that' s simply not true.

Halo 480p (Xbox)








Halo 3 720p (Xbox 360)

There are definitely improvements, but I think we' re beyond the point where we see a really shocking improvement of graphics quality from one generation to the next, a' la 8 bit to 16 bit, or 2D to 3D. From here on, the improvements will be more subtle, for example the realtime motion blur and depth-of-field we' re now seeing.

Of course the next big leap will be to actual 3D, holographic or some other technology. But who knows how many years away that is.

Yes, it is obviously better, just not mindblowingly so. Halo 1 was a launch game. Halo 3 is not.

ORIGINAL: Joe Redifer

A bit? More like 50 times. LOL.

The current generation graphics aren' t 50 times better than last generation' s. Sure, they' re in HD now, but other than that there really isn' t much that looks mindblowingly different from last gen.

Um, just about every high profile 360/PS3/PC game looks 50 times better than anything from last gen.


Regardless your " it' s just HD" bullshit gets thrown out the window when you realize last gen PC games were already running in console equivalent HD resolutions, and they still look like shit now, so no, higher resolutions isn' t what makes them look better, it' s EVERYTHING that makes them look better, because everything is more powerful now, moron.

Grand Theft Auto 3 on PC still looks like shit, doesn' t matter if you can run it at high resolutions. Resolution has nothing to do with why it looks like shit now.

If anything the things that got the lowest boost was resolution, the jump from 480i/p to the 720p " standard" we see today isn' t much of a jump.

If you think the graphics look 50 times better, then you' ve been sucking a bit too much of your mom' s cock. I think in one thread somewhere you stated that you like to get high. Perhaps you are high when you look at current gen graphics? They really aren' t that great. Good, yes. Mindblowing? Fuck no.

Are we running out of things to talk about??

No. We' ll move on to sound next.

ORIGINAL: Joe Redifer

If you think the graphics look 50 times better, then you' ve been sucking a bit too much of your mom' s cock. I think in one thread somewhere you stated that you like to get high. Perhaps you are high when you look at current gen graphics? They really aren' t that great. Good, yes. Mindblowing? *** no.

Hahahah, that' s great.

I destroyed your " it' s just HD" argument and now you' re mad? Tsk, tsk.

And when have I used the word " mind blowing" ? Sure they aren' t mind blowing, but they still look atleast 50 times better, which is what I' m saying, I' m not saying anything about them being mind blowing.

If you have a car, and I have a jet, whether or not the speed of my jet " blows your mind" I can still travel 50 times faster than you can, wether your mind is blown or not is irrelevant to that fact.

i don' t agree with you emofag, i think it' s just 42 times...

50 times is a lot of multipliers there, dude. You pulled that number from your ass. Remember, we' re talking graphics here. I' d say the current generation graphics are a bit over 50 times better than the PS 1 generation. I' m not talking CPU cycles, I' m talking about what shows up on my screen. Then again the Genesis and SNES usually looked better and more appealing than PS1 graphics...

I think it' s 51 times. Although I still wouldn' t say my mind is " blown away" by any graphics. Infact there was only one time where my mind ever came close to being blown away. I was taking a piss and I accidentally sneezed at the same time. It was like my mind tried to escape through my asshole. True story.

ORIGINAL: Joe Redifer

50 times is a lot of multipliers there, dude. You pulled that number from your ass. Remember, we' re talking graphics here. I' d say the current generation graphics are a bit over 50 times better than the PS 1 generation. I' m not talking CPU cycles, I' m talking about what shows up on my screen. Then again the Genesis and SNES usually looked better and more appealing than PS1 graphics...

You don' t know how to properly judge graphics.