next »

[Golds]

I picked up Mario Galaxy last night and have been enjoying it, both as a game, and also picking it apart technically.  We were talking about this in the irc channel earlier.



I could never quite tell from the YouTube previews, but it appears Mario's using something like stencil shadow volumes to handle all its shadows-- which are always projected in gravity's direction.  Unfortunately this technique means unsmoothed edges and a uniform brightness for all shaded areas.  Side effects include moving platforms whose shadows suddenly blink onto surfaces when they approach, and suddenly disappear as they pass.

An element that Galaxy uses all over the place to great effect is something like a fake rim lighting shader.  haowon thinks the Wii isn't fragment shader capable, so maybe they're faking it by setting an independent directional light aimed reverse relative to camera for each rimlit object?



It's all that lighting around the silhouettes of objects that helps give the characters and environments that signature plastic pop.

The fur shading is fairly nice as well, and I wonder how they're doing it on the Wii hardware, whether it's an actual shader, or they're doing tricks rendering a multilayered shell of increasingly translucent polygons like in Shadow of the Colossus.



Anyway, I am really enjoying the game so far, and the art direction is top notch. It's also great to play Mario along to a live orchestral score -- too bad Nintendo didn't make the switch in time for Twilight Princess. 

The shadows are the only real graphical let-down.  It seems like they could be doing something more clever with the alleged crazy fill-rate on the Wii.  Blurred textured shadow maps for near geometry or something?  Also, multisampling would be nice, but playing on a standard def tv is forgiving.

I'd love to hear other people's insights into the graphics behind the game.  The rim lighting shading is something that could be easily applied to indie games looking for some eye candy punch...

[skaldicpoet9]

Argh 

You have no idea how jealous I am of you right now lol...

Hastings won't have it until tomorrow...damn.

This game definitely does take the Wii's graphics to new limits, granted it may not be HD and all that fancy stuff but this game shows that beautiful games can still be made on the Wii.

[Melly]

From what I know (and I'm no expert, so bear with me) it seems that a lot of the fancy graphical effects of the latest graphics cards or the PS3 can be faked to some extent on older hardware, if you're just plain creative with it. Obviously it's not the same, especially to a trained eye, but it still looks pretty good if done right. I think most developers have very little range of sight when it comes to how to create a game's graphics. Instead of being creative, they seem to go and say "Oh, the Wii doesn't have this this and that, so those elements are out the window.".

[skaldicpoet9]

From what I know (and I'm no expert, so bear with me) it seems that a lot of the fancy graphical effects of the latest graphics cards or the PS3 can be faked to some extent on older hardware, if you're just plain creative with it. Obviously it's not the same, especially to a trained eye, but it still looks pretty good if done right. I think most developers have very little range of sight when it comes to how to create a game's graphics. Instead of being creative, they seem to go and say "Oh, the Wii doesn't have this this and that, so those elements are out the window.".

Exactly!

I am of a mind to agree with Nintendo's sentiments that the technology that we have to develop games is already more then adequate to fit the needs of any particular game genre. I read this article on Nintendo's website about how they were ironing out the details of the Wii and they ultimately decided that they didn't want to compete in the graphics race. Basically they said that pursuing "better" and "improved" graphics was a dead end due to the fact that the demand for better graphics never ends (which I wholeheartedly agree with). People will always want eye candy but Nintendo decided to focus on gameplay value which I respect immensely. Realistically, as long as a game has a good art direction it doesn't matter how great the graphics look as long as developers take the care to exploit the technology they have available to them.

[Zaphos]

Instead of being creative, they seem to go and say "Oh, the Wii doesn't have this this and that, so those elements are out the window.".

I don't know; game development is very hard, expensive, and time consuming.  Nintendo is one of the best-funded and most-respected developers around, and as a platform holder they have incentives to spend even more on development than they could make back from the game alone, which, in this case, is a huge amount of money.  So it seems rather unfair to say, "if Nintendo could do it, and other developers couldn't, then the other developers must have been lazy."  Maybe other developers *are* "lazy," but I wouldn't point to Mario Galaxy screens as proof of that.

People will always want eye candy but Nintendo decided to focus on gameplay value which I respect immensely.

Can we really equate 'producing hardware with weak graphical and computational power' with 'focus on gameplay value'?  I suppose if you have some logic here like, 'they needed to skimp on the CPU and GPU to have time to invent the wiimote,' then ... sort of.  Still not really, though, especially when you consider that GPU and CPU power also contribute to gameplay value, because (1) game appearance is an inseparable part of the game, and (2) the computation can go toward things like AI,  crowd simulation, etc

Realistically, as long as a game has a good art direction it doesn't matter how great the graphics look as long as developers take the care to exploit the technology they have available to them.

It seems contradictory to say it doesn't matter how great the graphics look but then require good art direction AND developers to exploit the available technology. 

It's also odd to not care about how powerful the hardware is, but require developers to exploit it fully -- if the graphics of Mario were on an 360 game, would you no longer appreciate them because they didn't exploit that hardware fully?

I think a more typical view of people who appreciate pixel art and other low-tech art would be that the technology and developer ingenuity only need to be good enough to pull off the look that the art direction wants from it.
In terms of Mario Galaxy, in seems like the hardware is not quite there; at least, certainly Golds pointed out how it could have had nicer shadows.

[Alec]

I think the point is that the technical aspects of the graphics don't matter as much to some people as the art direction. A lot of people can live with some minor technical details that aren't up to the latest/greatest standard if the game looks amazing and unique overall.

[skaldicpoet9]

Instead of being creative, they seem to go and say "Oh, the Wii doesn't have this this and that, so those elements are out the window.".

I don't know; game development is very hard, expensive, and time consuming.  Nintendo is one of the best-funded and most-respected developers around, and as a platform holder they have incentives to spend even more on development than they could make back from the game alone, which, in this case, is a huge amount of money.  So it seems rather unfair to say, "if Nintendo could do it, and other developers couldn't, then the other developers must have been lazy."  Maybe other developers *are* "lazy," but I wouldn't point to Mario Galaxy screens as proof of that.

People will always want eye candy but Nintendo decided to focus on gameplay value which I respect immensely.

Can we really equate 'producing hardware with weak graphical and computational power' with 'focus on gameplay value'?  I suppose if you have some logic here like, 'they needed to skimp on the CPU and GPU to have time to invent the wiimote,' then ... sort of.  Still not really, though, especially when you consider that GPU and CPU power also contribute to gameplay value, because (1) game appearance is an inseparable part of the game, and (2) the computation can go toward things like AI,  crowd simulation, etc

Realistically, as long as a game has a good art direction it doesn't matter how great the graphics look as long as developers take the care to exploit the technology they have available to them.

It seems contradictory to say it doesn't matter how great the graphics look but then require good art direction AND developers to exploit the available technology. 

It's also odd to not care about how powerful the hardware is, but require developers to exploit it fully -- if the graphics of Mario were on an 360 game, would you no longer appreciate them because they didn't exploit that hardware fully?

I think a more typical view of people who appreciate pixel art and other low-tech art would be that the technology and developer ingenuity only need to be good enough to pull off the look that the art direction wants from it.
In terms of Mario Galaxy, in seems like the hardware is not quite there; at least, certainly Golds pointed out how it could have had nicer shadows.

I disagree, I don't think that just because Nintendo has the resources to do it that they should be obligated to keep pursuing their graphics power capability above and beyond the current limits of existing hardware. In a perfect world I wish that a lot of developers would take a step back and reassess the need to push graphics further and further from where we are, I want a developer to exploit the gameplay rather then increasing the technical specifications. Granted, yes it is enjoyable to watch a game with some really jaw-dropping graphics but if the gameplay is shit is anyone going to spend anytime with it?

Good art direction and great looking graphics are not the same thing. When I speak about graphics as opposed to art direction it is from a technical view. I appreciate a hard working team that makes them most out of the tools that they have available to them at the time. However, you can make a great looking game without having a "good" art direction, the technology is now available for that. Furthermore, to a certain extent I think that this drive to create games that have more and more graphical prowess actually debases the game industry somewhat. Developers become complacent because they know that as long as the technical side of the game is covered and the gameplay is somewhat fleshed out,they can make a lot of money with very little or no content at all. Don't get me wrong though, that's not always the case and not even necessarily the norm, I am just saying that above all else games should be made to be fun and shouldn't have to rely on how many polygons a particular system can render at any given time or some such thing.

I think the point is that the technical aspects of the graphics don't matter as much to some people as the art direction. A lot of people can live with some minor technical details that aren't up to the latest/greatest standard if the game looks amazing and unique overall.

Just look at Final Fantasy Tactics, great game but the graphics are obviously dated however, the art direction and gameplay elements of the game fashion it into something that becomes timeless. I think that is what all games should try to strive toward, that kind of "timeless" quality that makes a game retain it's beauty even after a few years down the line.

[Zaphos]

I disagree, I don't think that just because Nintendo has the resources to do it that they should be obligated to keep pursuing their graphics power capability above and beyond the current limits of existing hardware.

Who are you disagreeing with?  No one said that.

In a perfect world I wish that a lot of developers would take a step back and reassess the need to push graphics further and further from where we are, I want a developer to exploit the gameplay rather then increasing the technical specifications. Granted, yes it is enjoyable to watch a game with some really jaw-dropping graphics but if the gameplay is shit is anyone going to spend anytime with it?

I think you're arguing with a straw man, here?  No one is saying people should ignore 'gameplay' for the sake of 'graphics' or 'technical specifications'?

Don't get me wrong though, that's not always the case and not even necessarily the norm, I am just saying that above all else games should be made to be fun and shouldn't have to rely on how many polygons a particular system can render at any given time or some such thing.

Games do inherently rely on technology, though; for example, Mario Galaxy would never be possible on the SNES ... the capability of a system is a definite practical concern which directly affects what a developer can or cannot do in their game.

[skaldicpoet9]

I disagree, I don't think that just because Nintendo has the resources to do it that they should be obligated to keep pursuing their graphics power capability above and beyond the current limits of existing hardware.

Who are you disagreeing with?  No one said that.

In a perfect world I wish that a lot of developers would take a step back and reassess the need to push graphics further and further from where we are, I want a developer to exploit the gameplay rather then increasing the technical specifications. Granted, yes it is enjoyable to watch a game with some really jaw-dropping graphics but if the gameplay is shit is anyone going to spend anytime with it?

I think you're arguing with a straw man, here?  No one is saying people should ignore 'gameplay' for the sake of 'graphics' or 'technical specifications'?

Don't get me wrong though, that's not always the case and not even necessarily the norm, I am just saying that above all else games should be made to be fun and shouldn't have to rely on how many polygons a particular system can render at any given time or some such thing.

Games do inherently rely on technology, though; for example, Mario Galaxy would never be possible on the SNES ... the capability of a system is a definite practical concern which directly affects what a developer can or cannot do in their game.

My bad man, I was under the impression that you were saying that due to Nintendo having a vast pool of resources they are obligated somehow to push the potential of their hardware.

The only point I was trying to make was that I feel like a lot of games are exploiting the fact that a good number of people will buy a game because it looks "cool".

For me the bottom line is that I believe that the Wii is capable enough to handle any game that developers would want to make not matter what it's limitations are ultimately.

[Zaphos]

My bad man, I was under the impression that you were saying that due to Nintendo having a vast pool of resources they are obligated somehow to push the potential of their hardware.

What I said about the vast pool of resources was in response to Melly's comment that other developers are being lazy; it was not saying Nintendo had the obligation, rather just that they had the capability.

For me the bottom line is that I believe that the Wii is capable enough to handle any game that developers would want to make not matter what it's limitations are ultimately.

Um ... I think you're pretty clearly limited in the amount you can process and render, so it should be easy to imagine games that are not possible on the Wii; just imagine a game that wants to deal with a whole lot of stuff in an intelligent way.  A large open world, GTA-style game, for example, where the crowds are allowed to be much denser and the characters are persistent, logical entities instead of just random models spawned just out of your line of sight.

And generally for AI -- the more CPU time we have, the higher the ceiling in terms of creating AI that really seems to understand and interact with a complex, multi-purpose environment.  So there's just a greater range of enemies/NPCs that are possible as you spend more processor cycles on AI.

And then there are many computationally difficult simulations which could potentially be used to interesting gameplay effect, but which mostly aren't even really possible to do properly in real time on any hardware right now; stuff like properly deformable/destructable objects, realistic simulation of water interacting with rigid (or, even worse, deformable) bodies, etc.

And, although you can pick a rendering style that the Wii can do well, I think realism may be the right aesthetic choice for some games.  And detail becomes very important, as well, as you want to capture believable human characters; you really want to capture the eyes and the full face motions, so you want pretty high quality geometry.

So I think a huge part of game development currently is that you have all these very difficult problems in simulation, rendering, etc, that no system can solve 100% correctly, and you have to figure out what you can cut out or 'cheat' your way around while still creating a great game.  And people have gotten very good at this, but every cut or cheat removes some range of possibilities and so dictates more about what games can or can't do.  So I would say not only is the Wii not capable enough to handle "any game that developers would want to make" ... but also that no system is there yet.

[Melly]

No system will ever be, really. What if someone in the far future wants to create a game that realistically and precisely simulates a whole planet in every minute detail? Like, molecular detail?

And with my comment I was focusing on most of the current Wii developers. If you look at the majority of Wii games you'll see that the devs seemed to think "Oh, this is good enough, no need to put effort into graphics. It's the Wii, right?". An example would be Dragon Blade. I think Shenmue for the Dreamcast looked better in some aspects.

Anyway, that's just the feeling I get from all of it. None of us can say for sure what goes on in the development of a Wii game (unless anyone here has worked on the console). Just that seeing what awesome things Retro did with Metroid Prime 3 makes me wonder if, yes, people are being lazy on the graphics in Wii games.

Also, adding to it, I don't think an enourmous ammount of processing power is necessary to make some kinds of games great. You can give the player the feeling of being inside a large, crowded city, for example, where characters live realistic lives. I think one of the Ultimas did that to some extent a long while ago. Sure, it won't be in the same level of detail, but with clever design you can get a very similar feeling out of the player.

Maybe gamers are growing spoiled, I dunno.

[Zaphos]

And with my comment I was focusing on most of the current Wii developers. If you look at the majority of Wii games you'll see that the devs seemed to think "Oh, this is good enough, no need to put effort into graphics. It's the Wii, right?". An example would be Dragon Blade. I think Shenmue for the Dreamcast looked better in some aspects.

Fair enough!

Also, adding to it, I don't think an enourmous ammount of processing power is necessary to make some kinds of games great. You can give the player the feeling of being inside a large, crowded city, for example, where characters live realistic lives. I think one of the Ultimas did that to some extent a long while ago. Sure, it won't be in the same level of detail, but with clever design you can get a very similar feeling out of the player.

Of course it's not necessary to make games great, but I think it does enable some types of games that would not be possible otherwise.  Some of those new types may be possible to approximate with older techniques / hardware, but not all of them, and not without losing something in the transition.

Maybe gamers are growing spoiled, I dunno.

I think it's more that games are expanding in to a broader, richer field, and expectations for new games have to expand with that.  After all, there are so many great old games still available -- if a new game isn't adding anything beyond what those games offered me, in terms of either graphics or gameplay, why should I play the new one instead of just going back to the old stuff?

[skaldicpoet9]

So I think a huge part of game development currently is that you have all these very difficult problems in simulation, rendering, etc, that no system can solve 100% correctly, and you have to figure out what you can cut out or 'cheat' your way around while still creating a great game.  And people have gotten very good at this, but every cut or cheat removes some range of possibilities and so dictates more about what games can or can't do.  So I would say not only is the Wii not capable enough to handle "any game that developers would want to make" ... but also that no system is there yet.

True enough, I suppose some of the reasoning I employed about developers being able to make "any game they want" was due to the fact that I use a PC if I went to run the latest and greatest games. I see that consoles are moving more and more toward being basically gaming specific PCs essentially. I think that to a certain extent the Wii is the more traditional approach to consoles then PS3 OR 360 are (yes, even with the motion controls). I've always seen a console as a platform that is more specifically oriented toward people who play games casually anyways. I have always felt that consoles were meant to be more accessible as a gaming platform. But that is just my preference, I got the Wii so I could chill out on the couch and play some good games and I have my PC for all of the strategy, simulations, RPGs, and such. It's just more economical in my mind to buy a new graphics card then to buy an entirely new system when technology makes that next leap.

Don't get me wrong either, I like a great looking game as much as the next guy. I am actually excited about where games can go from here from a technical standpoint. I mean who wouldn't want to play an RPG where all of the characters and events in the game were more dynamic and spontaneous then linear and predictable.

There is such an immense amount of potential to make these really great games, I'd just rather play them on a PC

Now if someone made a console that had the ability to be upgraded and updated to the newest hardware specs ala PC style...

[Zaphos]

Alright then, I can see that

[marshmonkey]

I enjoy the challenge of squeezing as much character and life out of a limited set of technology.  Sometimes having all the latest shaders and complete bump-mapped, ray traced, technology feels like brute forcing something that took a little bit more of a human artistic touch to pull off before.  In any case someone will always be doing amazing looking things with every new technology they can get their hands on.

I'm very curious about the technology and art direction behind galaxy as well, tonight I was actually working on rendering a scene I already had with rim lighting inspired by mario galaxy:





one thing in particular I notced from an art direction standpoint is that the rim lighting really shines in galaxy because almost everything is rounded, which gives things a chance to show off a highlight from most angles.

[PHeMoX]

And with my comment I was focusing on most of the current Wii developers. If you look at the majority of Wii games you'll see that the devs seemed to think "Oh, this is good enough, no need to put effort into graphics. It's the Wii, right?". An example would be Dragon Blade. I think Shenmue for the Dreamcast looked better in some aspects.

I totally agree, in fact, quite some games that were released on the Gamecube too, looked better or at least as good as the Wii versions.

I think there have been a few games now that tried to push the Wii, like Splinter Cell: Double Agent and Metroid Prime 3, but I'm sure a bit more is possible with the Wii graphics-wise.

I wouldn't say a GTA-like environment with interesting AI wouldn't be possible on the Wii, because frankly the PS2 as far as I know is not as powerful as the Wii. I have to say that PS2 games haven't exactly blown me away in terms of AI, but the Wii should at least be able to do twice(?) as good without sacrificing too much power for graphics.

[skaldicpoet9]

Another thing that holds the Wii back is the fact that there are a good number of developers out there that just decide to release something on the Wii without any real effort being put into the graphics (and gameplay for that matter) itself. This has added to the sentiment that the Wii is just an overhyped last-gen system. Just take a look at the first gen Wii games, most of them are poorly concieved ports of other systems, this is why to a certain extent I am fearful of Okami's release on the Wii. However, I believe more developers are actually starting to realize the Wii's potential and are now following suit. Personally, I think year two for the Wii is going to be phenomenal

[AdamAtomic]

Well to post on topic, I actually thought the shadows were perfectly conceived and executed for this particular game.  Galaxy's shadows are NOT included for realism, but for gameplay purposes, to help you see where in 3D space all the objects are.  They did a really phenomenal job in that respect, and I think any additional "realism" would have worked against their purpose...

[ColossusEntertainment]

I think the simpler graphics on the Wii is one of the things which is really promising. By not being bound to the graphics hype, developers will be free to explore other aspects of games. Gameplay for example. It seems quite likely that future Wii games will be competing on gameplay rather than graphics, and that can only be a good thing.

Who cares what technique a game uses for shadows? If the game is worth playing, the shadows is there to indicate an objects height off the ground, and could be a black disc for all I care... 

[skaldicpoet9]

By not being bound to the graphics hype, developers will be free to explore other aspects of games.

I think this is the most exciting thing about Wii games right now, now hopefully more developers will have the same thought...