Hailed by some as Wii's most important title in development. It emerges from it's media blackout looking like absolute trash...

Never heard of it.  Must not have been that important.

Don't even look at future Wii games just keep Galaxy in it and try to forget that you paid 400$ for one game.

yeah seriously, I will buy a Wii but only for mario Galaxy [which is amazing] how hard is it to make good game for it? xbox one graphics looked allot better too.

The game looks like shit. Always has. I know there were people here who had hopes for it, because I debated to the contrary with them.

...after seeing titles like this, I still wonder why they binned H.A.M.M.E.R.

Eddie_the_Hated


The game looks like shit. Always has. I know there were people here who had hopes for it, because I debated to the contrary with them.

...after seeing titles like this, I still wonder why they binned H.A.M.M.E.R.

I had hopes for this game. I still love the concept of the game. As for me...these screens actually don't really change a thing for me. I want this game to play great if it had looked good then that would have been a nice bonus. A bit early to say a game sucks ain't it just because the graphics aren't all that great. Last time I checked it's the gameplay that makes a good game not the graphics.
So all in all these screens really don't change a thing at all, I do want news though on the gameplay. That would have been some real news.

As for Project H.A.M.M.E.R. I still think it sucks that they canned it. I actually don't get why they did it. But ah well guess we'll never know if it was/would be any good or not.

Demonoroth

Eddie_the_Hated


The game looks like shit. Always has. I know there were people here who had hopes for it, because I debated to the contrary with them.

...after seeing titles like this, I still wonder why they binned H.A.M.M.E.R.

I had hopes for this game. I still love the concept of the game. As for me...these screens actually don't really change a thing for me. I want this game to play great if it had looked good then that would have been a nice bonus. A bit early to say a game sucks ain't it just because the graphics aren't all that great. Last time I checked it's the gameplay that makes a good game not the graphics.
So all in all these screens really don't change a thing at all, I do want news though on the gameplay. That would have been some real news.

As for Project H.A.M.M.E.R. I still think it sucks that they canned it. I actually don't get why they did it. But ah well guess we'll never know if it was/would be any good or not.

It could trun out to be pretty good... it could be the best fucking game ever. But we dont really care about any of theat at this point in time. What we don't understand is how newly developed third party titles on the platform look graphically worse in general that most PS2, Xbox and Gamecube games.

Id love to make a Wii game to show these lazy fucks how to make a good game.

A drinking game, game?

Are you implying something Eddie?

with waggle Eddie

Nitro

What we don't understand is how newly developed third party titles on the platform look graphically worse in general that most PS2, Xbox and Gamecube games.

This has puzzled me too for quite a while actually. How some things actually can look worse compared to the generation before. Including games for the Gamecube. Even if gameplay eventually is the most important it doesn't hurt to have the best graphics possible for the particular console.

Simple economics, m'lads. *smugly chomping on a cigar*  What we've got here is a toxic swirl of a little white box that prints money, and a whole lot of developers who frankly don't take much pride in their craft.  The fact is the Wii is capable of much more graphically than it's being called on to do, and there are only a handful of developers who have the pride in their craft to push it.

At the same time, however, there is a constricting aspect to core Nintendo fans' desires to see newer versions of their classic series.  Obviously characters like Mario can't be graphically complexified very much at this point.  About the most that can be done is some kind of normal mapping of his denim overalls, maybe some kind of real hair/fur for his moustache... but he's a cartoony character and it won't work stylistically if his appearance is complexified and made realistic.  Zelda might be the only series they have that can support a wide variety of visual reimaginings... but those games are on a very long development cycle -- and so far for very good reason, as they have seemingly all been excellent.  But with titles like these so few and far between, the Wii does seem to be relegated to a secondary status in core gamers' entertainment systems.

What I would hope for any company would be that they would do what they need to to stay afloat and be profitable, but to always set aside some of that money for what might be called auteur games... the most artistic, visionary games that are bigger risks but carry the unique visions of particular designers/development teams.  Those types of games will always be relatively few and far between, but with good planning we could see a few of them every year. 

At this point though, we have a situation verging on the out-of-hand mess that burgeoned on the Atari 2600, with an avalanche of subpar games being brought out to make a quick buck.  One advantage that Nintendo has over the Atari of 1983 is vastly more savvy management, though.  But 2008 is a bit of a letdown, with Nintendo trying to herald the upcoming Wario game as some sort of major milestone in their dedication to core gamers.