The Conduit: A true technical leap for Wii?

By Richard Leadbetter Published 28 July, 2009

Can High Voltage's engine compete with PS3/360?

The Wii doesn't get a huge amount of love nor attention at Digital Foundry, and in some senses this is something we should be addressing. For a start, Nintendo's first-party commitment to 60FPS gameplay is impressive, especially bearing in mind the paucity of system resources on offer. However, for now, we'll be taking a look at High Voltage's The Conduit. Does it live up to the tech promises made in the run-up to its launch, and crucially just how well does it perform?

In theory there is nothing here that shouldn't have been possible on Nintendo GameCube (albeit running at a lower frame-rate or with pared back effects). The platform holder has never revealed the full spec of the Wii, but various leaks have cropped up online, all of which have been helpfully summed up in this Beyond3D forum posting which we consider to be highly accurate.

The bottom line is that the GPU and CPU of the Wii are essentially identical to the GameCube, albeit ramped up by a factor of around 50 per cent in terms of clock speed and die-shrunk (which presumably made the raw speed increase possible as well as making the silicon more economical). This explains why backwards compatibility is to all intents and purposes perfect for running GameCube software. The system downclocks when a Cube title is in play and internal memory pools are re-purposed to match the previous generation's configuration. Insanely, this all means that the base design for the core technology inside Wii is the best part of 10 years old. Insert your own dramatic pause here.

In many senses, this makes the Wii something of a technical marvel in terms of how far that architecture is being pushed in some circumstances. Super Mario Galaxy is in my view a true technical masterpiece for the Wii, born out by how well the visuals scale up to 720p within the Dolphin emulator. In terms of what The Conduit offers over the common or garden release, High Voltage released this tech video which explains the key effects.

In this video from High Voltage, the developer showcases the core visual upgrades the Quantum3 engine adds to its Wii games.

All of which looks fairly impressive in combination, but as individual effects, they are hardly state-of-the-art. Projective textures are pretty old - something Unreal Engine 2 might have bragged about. The water effect looks great, but it is smoke and mirrors to an extent: an environment map on the water surface to fake a reflection (but if it works, why not?). The bloom is most likely a pretty simple process - a glow map indicating areas that get blurred brightness is added and blended to the original texture. Burnout 2 may well have been the first console game to have bloom effects, so again, hardly new. In a sense it can be argued that High Voltage is taking the baton from Factor 5 in terms of what was accomplished on GameCube and then pushing further on the more powerful Wii platform. Quantum3 becomes special simply because it nobody else seems to be doing that.

Let's take a look at actual gameplay then and see what else is going on, and crucially see how well it performs. Frame-rate analysis on any source that is not digital in origin isn't easy (it involves a first pass using automated means, then checking problem areas by eye), but this is certainly a very close, very accurate representation of The Conduit's performance level.

Our performance analysis of The Conduit on Wii. Visual quality is impacted by a downsampling/dithering of the frame-buffer inherent to all Wii and GameCube titles. A higher-resolution version of this is available via the EGTV link.

As you can see, 30FPS is the baseline here, but there is a clear impact on performance related to fillrate and alpha-blended effects (which seem to be operating with a pretty low resolution buffer). It's difficult to make out but there seems to be simple shadowmaps with no self-shadowing. Animation is good, with a decent ragdoll system in place.

If the overall look in the gameplay video looks somewhat "last gen" with some additional effects tacked on, it's worth putting The Conduit up against the best of the previous generation and reminding ourselves of the top-end tech level on the older platforms. Criterion's Black is almost universally acknowledged as the most technically advanced first-person shooter of the PS2/Xbox era with which Wii has much in common. This video is taken from the Xbox Originals version, so chances are it's slightly less optimal compared to the original Xbox and PS2 game (though you do get 4x multisampling AA thrown in for free). That being the case, frame-rate measurement here is more for those interested in Xbox Originals performance - any comparison with The Conduit should be based on overall look and feel.

Performance analysis of the Xbox Originals version of Criterion's Black. The look and feel is the real point of comparison with The Conduit. A higher-resolution version of this video is available via the EGTV click-through.

The overall impression reflects many of the review comments that lauded The Conduit's engine but were far more critical of the artistic direction. The Quantum3 engine is impressive, and it is doing techy stuff that Black never really attempted, but you can't help wonder what the result would be if there were better artists at work and a more coherent vision for the overall look of the game. Still, even in a best-case scenario, it's a clear generation behind the majority of the lower-end points of comparison we have on Xbox 360 and PS3.

In terms of The Conduit's gameplay, the point-and-shoot system is something of a double-edged sword. Pointing at the opponent and shooting is obviously something that is a huge advantage for the Wii over the PS3 and Xbox 360. However, what isn't so welcome is the notion of dragging the reticule all the way over to the edges of the screen to spin around on the spot. Insofar as the aim-and-fire mechanic works well, the notion of essentially pointing off screen to move your in-game "head" feels somewhat counter-intuitive. It makes me wonder whether hand and head-tracking via Project Natal on 360 would have the precision required to produce a more immersive interface (gut feeling: head yes, hand no).

Overall then, it feels as though there is much more to come from the Quantum3 tech, so long as it is married with better assets that are perhaps more tailored to the core technology's strengths and weaknesses - a Super Mario Galaxy/Killzone 2 situation if you like, where the peculiar limitations of the hardware and the engine form a major part of the considerations of the artists.

High Voltage certainly looks set to leverage its technology. Two new games, The Grinder and Gladiator HD, are currently in development, and we'll be looking at those more closely once there is something more muscular and meaningful to report on.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (86) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Psychotext #1 3 years ago

    "Can High Voltage's engine compete with PS3 and 360"

    O_o

  • Moonprince #2 3 years ago

    Do we as gamers expect it to or care?

  • carlitoswagon #3 3 years ago

    No

  • KrissAkabusi #4 3 years ago

    These sort of articles totally miss the point of gaming

  • Malek86 #5 3 years ago

    "Can High Voltage's engine compete with PS3 and 360?"

    Of course it can't. This line is way off. This should have been more like "can it show off the Wii's power?".

    Even so, I think the answer is no, or at least, not yet. The Wii could probably do some more than this (without getting into the art direction argument). Maybe with time. It always takes some years to truly harness the horsepower of a console.

    KrissAkabusi: I don't think so. I mean, one of Conduit's selling point, according to HVS, was that it would have been a showcase for the Wii's technical strength. So now it's only fair that people want to see if that's true or not.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 14:04

  • ChadSexington #6 3 years ago

    I'd kill myself if the only console I had was a Wii.

  • patchbox360 #7 3 years ago

    Can High Voltage's engine compete with PS3 and 360?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • Luckyjim #8 3 years ago

    Without trying to sound too tautological, the Conduit is what it is. A generic, artless FPS that happens to have a good engine behind it. Talking in terms of how it empirically compares to PS3/360 games is purely academic. As you mentioned yourself, Mario Galaxy looks phenomenal. But that's mostly down to talented artists. In my opinion, Galaxy is one of the best looking games this gen. It's the look and visual creativity of Galaxy that means that it compares favourably with its more high-end contemporaries. We should get off this tech fixation.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 14:07

  • Gaol #9 3 years ago

    I'm not sure even head tracking will work on Natal.

    Picture the scene, you turn your head to the left to move left... however the TV isn't moving so as your head is to the left your eyes have to look right to maintain focus on the screen. In other words you will be looking to the right as your avatar turns to the left. Counter-intuitive at best, and possibly vomit inducing.

    Of course there is another option developers can consider instead of motion controls. They're called thumbsticks and I think I recall the 360 pad having a decent pair...

  • Canyarion #10 3 years ago

    I thought it was Gladiator AD, not HD. Just pointing it out.

    The Conduit looks graphically good, but there's room for improvement.

  • BritishBlue1 #11 3 years ago

    "Can High Voltage's engine compete with PS3 and 360?"

    Short answer: no and I doubt High Voltage give a damn either. It's a stupid question, really.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 14:18

  • BritishBlue1 #12 3 years ago

    "These sort of articles totally miss the point of gaming?"

    Got it in one. I find myself wondering the same about Eurogamer as a whole.

  • Weezer #13 3 years ago

    I'm never sure whether these articles are really well researched and written by knowledgeable experts - or just made by coding wannabes with loads of tech-talk bollocks thrown in for good measure.

    Blah blah blah "iinternal memory pools", blah blah blah "4x oversampling AA", blah blah blah "low resolution buffer". I could make this up, easy.

    "The Conduit has quaternion normal regeneration and a memory/data threshold of just 7.2." See? Piece of piss.

  • Xerx3s #14 3 years ago

    I disagree, I reckon that Doom 3 or Halo 2 was the best looking FPS last gen. Recently replayed Doom 3 and fuck me, it still looks amazing. I could be wrong but I doubt that the wii would be able to run those games with the same level of detail.

  • Darren #15 3 years ago

    Seeing as The Conduit turned out to a bland, uninspired shooter, it really doesn't matter how impressive the tech is running it, the chances are few people will have played it and fewer will even care.

    To be honest, looking at the Wii purely from a technical point of view, the machine is a crushing disappointment. I saw more graphically impressive games on the GameCube to be honest... there's nothing on the Wii that looks as technically lush as Factor 5's two Star Wars Rogue Squadron games for example which used *gasp* bump mapping, something I've never seen in ANY Wii game to date. Even Super Mario Galaxy, lovely as it looks artistically, isn't really that big an improvement over Super Mario Sunshine in my opinion; you can certainly tell they come from the same generation of hardware really. Also Zelda: Twilight Princess might have had more realistic visuals but it looks far more dated that the gorgeous Wind Waker IMO.

    And isn't that really the thing here... that neither the Wii nor GameCube were really impressive hardware wise to begin with, it was just gorgeous art design that helped mask the shortcomings of the hardware. Just look at Okami for example, the engine itself is clumsy with a short draw distance and lots of pop up but it looks so damn beautiful that it has barely dated at all since its release (much like Wind Waker actually). Nintendo games look at their best when they aren't remotely attempting to be realistic. Check out Metroid Prime 3 for example, it's semi-cartoony but it suits the game perfectly and it looks great.

    One question remains though... if the Wii really is 50% faster than the GameCube and has more memory then why is that 98% of its games look worst than those on the GameCube outside of Nintendo's own first-party releases? Why aren't all developers using that extra power? :?
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 14:25

  • Skurmedel #16 3 years ago

    This article is for people who are tech fixated. There is no need to read it if you don't care for it. Plenty of other stuff to read on this site.

    Darren: There are PS3 and 360 games that look like utter shite too compared to their peers. I think Motorstorm is pretty damn ugly; Uncharted on the other hand looks amazing. I don't think Halo 3 looks especially spectacular; Assassins Creed does.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 14:25

  • spongebob #17 3 years ago

    What's truly impressive is how, once again, Richard completely misses the mark here. Just some guesses and lists of the tech and then a conclusion that everybody knew before reading the article. What should I gain by reading these?

  • CallousB #18 3 years ago

    "Why aren't all developers using that extra power?"...because most publishers are simply shoving their B/C class teams onto the platform..or are farming games out to cheap shovelware devs.

  • schnide #19 3 years ago

    "Still, even in a best-case scenario, [The Conduit on Wii is] a clear generation behind the majority of the lower-end points of comparison we have on Xbox 360 and PS3."

    So exactly like I said some time ago and ended up getting a PM from a crazed fanboii, the Wii is last gen tech.

    For all those that say the hardware capability doesn't matter if the games are there, presumably you'd have been happy if they'd kept the N64 going as long as Miyamoto et al kept developing for it.

  • peterfll #20 3 years ago

    I spun up my copy of GC Rogue Squadron the other day, it really does impress still and makes you think there's so much in this extended Wii architecture that hasn't been fully exploited.

  • varsas #21 3 years ago

    @KrissAkabusi: This article isn't about gaming...

  • KrissAkabusi #22 3 years ago

    @malek
    But have you ever bought a game just on the grounds of the numbers its crunching? I'd rather see more articles on actual design thoughts and processes, you know things which actually influence the "fun" of the game. It's good to have a paragraph here and there in cross-platform games explaining which is better technically, ie Ghostbusters on 360, but there seems to be too much of this tech-heavy stuff on this site lately. It's quite a turn off.

  • Darren #23 3 years ago

    @Skurmedel - I agree that there are some ugly looking games on the 360 and PS3 - Halo 3 springs immediately to mind - but the vast majority of the games are pushing the hardware and show it, totally unlike the Wii, where only a small percentage of games seem to be making any real use of its hardware.

    Overall Wii games IMO look worst comparatively than the GameCube which at least had developers striving to match the Xbox and PS2 visually. Since the Wii is so graphically inferior to the 360 and PS3 it means there is now no real motivation to make games look amazing. I mean take a look at thw Wii Sports and Wii Fit games for example, two of the biggest selling games to date, the graphics are terrible technically, although it's a matter of taste as to whether you prefer the art design. Those to my mind are representative of what the Wii has to offer, most developers just simply don't bother making any real effort with the graphics because they're of the mind-set that the owners don't really care about them.

    Maybe they're right. Gameplay is more important than graphics, sure, but there's nothing wrong with having good gameplay *and* good graphics.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 14:56

  • Collymilad #24 3 years ago

    Unbelievable tagline.

    EG: Get a grip.

    Anyone with the slighest clue about computer hardware knows the answer is NO and always will be NO.

    The Wii will never get anywhere close to looking as good as PS3/360 in its current form. Never. End of.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 15:00

  • schnide #25 3 years ago

    Serious amount of miserable fanboii's on here. Why read articles you say you don't care about?

    Particularly when you know what the outcome's going to be?

    You're probably more pissed off because you know these conclusions are all 100% justified.

  • Evolution #26 3 years ago

    @Darren

    This is what frustrates me to no end seeing as the only console I own from this generation is a Wii. It seems a rare thing to have a developers who aren't Nintendo actually give a shit about the visuals. I don't expect shiny HD graphics but come on, if RE4 was possible on the cube, then surely the Wii can achieve things which are just as good? I don't care about graphics per se, but I notice when the devs clearly don't give a damn.

  • chukcyQ #27 3 years ago

    Wow you get to shoot things.

  • JahB #28 3 years ago

    Unbelievable tagline.

    EG: Get a grip.
    .

    the devs of the conduit claimed it would look like a 360 launch title, so the tagline is absolutely justified; as is EG/DF checking if that promise was true.

  • junkie_with_a_monkey #29 3 years ago

    I'm pretty sure that ICO was the first game to use Bloom lighting.

  • Collymilad #30 3 years ago

    "Unbelievable tagline.

    EG: Get a grip.
    .

    the devs of the conduit claimed it would look like a 360 launch title, so the tagline is absolutely justified; as is EG/DF checking if that promise was true."

    This WHOLE ARTICLE is UNjustifiable, and many others seem to agree. It's like doing a track test of a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F50 to see if the Ford is as fast, just because someone said it would be.

    Pointless.

  • Demiath #31 3 years ago

    KrissAkabusi: These sort of articles totally miss the point of gaming.
    LuckyJim: We should get off this tech fixation.

    Just to state the bleedingly obvious, Digital Foundry is all about the "tech fixation", that's what Leadbetter et. al. is supposed to write about here. It doesn't mean that there aren't other relevant considerations beyond the technological aspect (such as, for example, if The Conduit is an interesting game or not); just that the tech side of things is what this particular section of Eurogamer should focus on.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 15:21

  • Gearskin #32 3 years ago

    I'm gonna play some Conduit later.

  • kangarootoo #33 3 years ago

    @Gaol

    Head tracking already exists and works very well. All you have done is described a very badly designed implementation of head tracking. It should be no wonder therefore that it doesn't work very well.

  • mashk #34 3 years ago

    Developers have probably acknowledged the fact that Wii gamers probably own one of the other two consoles or aren't interested in these types of games. So, either do half arsed ports or don't even bother. Is there any other reason why Modern Warfare 2 isn't making an appearance?

  • BritishBlue1 #35 3 years ago

    Why is this site completely fucking riddled with 360 fanboys? Seriously, I see somebody talking nonsensical shit about the Wii or PS3, click on their name and there's a XBL gamertag/avatar behind it almost every time...it beggers belief.

  • mkreku #36 3 years ago

    Damn, Black STILL looks good!

  • StooMonster #37 3 years ago

    Digital Foundry's articles are certainly not to everyone's taste -- as one can see from the comments above -- but I like them. :)

  • JahB #38 3 years ago

    This WHOLE ARTICLE is UNjustifiable, and many others seem to agree. It's like doing a track test of a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F50 to see if the Ford is as fast, just because someone said it would be.

    not entirely correct; it's like doing that track test after Ford claimed their new focus is as fast as an F50; i don't see your problem with this article. Developer makes claim, website calls them on it, reveals it to be BS. unless you're working for the conduit's publisher, i don't understand how you can get so defensive about this

  • mr_pink #39 3 years ago

    Please don't use leverage as a verb. Thank you.

  • stoopidgreg #40 3 years ago

    framerate drops to 25 regularly, even as low as 20. the aiming also looks horribly random. but saying that, the game does look pretty fun. definitely not going to take on the 360 or PS3 but it looks better than most xbox1 games.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 16:15

  • septimus #41 3 years ago

    That looks utterly horrid to play, let alone the graphics being an issue. Seeing the hands flailing all over the screen made me feel a little nauseous which is a first. Never had motion sickness ever.

  • malexous #42 3 years ago

    @ Darren

    It's good you said that its your opinion. Most others think Galaxy looks great.

    Zelda: TP is a GC port, with GC graphics.

    The GameCube wasn't impressive hardware? Better hardware than the PS2.

    Why is that 98% of Wii games look crap? I think you know why. The developers get away with it so they don't bother. Nothing to do with the specs of the Wii.

    __________________________




    HVS admitted that they didn't push the Wii to its limits with The Conduit. So again, blame the developers, not the Wii.
    Edited by 2 at 28/07/09 @ 16:21

  • speedjack #43 3 years ago

    Good article.

    So in short, the Wii is based on 10 year old architecture (i.e. 'last gen'). Not a surprise.

    The only way to realistically compare whether or not the Conduits engine is doing anything special is to compare it the best of what the last generation of FPS had to offer - i.e. Black.

    Testing shows it does more than Black's engine did - but looses some of its shine due to the poor art assets its rendering. Fair enough.

    The comments however are the usual fanboy bitching, and console willy waving.

    The fact of the matter is that Digital Foundry's stuff is interesting for anyone who wants to look beyond the games and get an impartial commentary on the tech that drives them.

    I own a Wii and am very happy with my purchase.

    I own the Conduit and am not so happy with that purchase - simply because the gameplay isn't where it should be. If it had been on a par with Black I'd have been a lot happier.

    I also own both a next gen console and a penis but neither feels threatened by informed and educated technical discussion.

  • peterfll #44 3 years ago

    The GC had plenty of visually arresting games. The fact that the Wii emulates these perfectly clearly demonstrates the Wii is as capable, so I'm not sure I agree with the point that Wii is even less capable than the GC.

    A comparison of Mario Sunshine against Mario Galaxy would be interesting. Of course, I played the latter more recently so I would point to that as more impressive. However, the former was also had some gorgeous graphics too. But I'd like to see a comparison of the two engines powering both games. I would hazard a guess that Galaxy has some more technical tricks in the engine, but would like to see this verified from a technical perspective.

  • insin #45 3 years ago

    ...try to do any kind of freeform battle that involves more maneuvering than simple strafing and the Wiimote does not work.

    Have a go at QuakeGX for a free demonstration of how wrong this statement is. It totally nails traditional FPS controls on the Wii.

    http://wiibrew.org/wi ki/QuakeGX

  • smelly #46 3 years ago

    This entire article is nothing but fanboy bait.

    Technical stuff means f-all. And does NOTHING to make a game FUN (which i hear conduit isnt).

    A game can look great regardless of tech as long as it has a choice in artstyle to suit that tech. For example the other two consoles are obviously more powerful, but that makes no difference if the art style chosen in SOME games is just a load of boring grey and browns. If you look at the graphical choices made by mario galaxy, sure - TECHNICALLY its not that great, and it's not even in hi def... But because of the choices made in the art style - it ends up being ONE of the best looking games of this gen.

  • Darren #47 3 years ago

    @malexous - Erm, where exactly did I say Galaxy did NOT look great?!? :?

    I didn't. I actually said that Galaxy doesn't look that different from Sunshine on the Cube but perhaps if I said that I thought the GameCube title stills looks lovely it might help clarify things, i.e. Galaxy also looks lovely, it just doesn't look 50% better than Sunshine that's all? ;)

  • smelly #48 3 years ago

    "which is ironic as black was probably the most generic first person shooter in history "


    Never played black - i was considering downloading it on xbox originals too! In that case have to avoid it - as up until now i'd labelled halo 3 as that :-)


    "I can imagine the duality-storm raging in smelly's warped little head right now: How does he balance his unbridled hatred for FPS games"

    I dont have a hatred for fps games.. just a hatred for bland boring games (be they fps or not).. such as the conduit (or so i hear) and halo 3.

  • Zander #49 3 years ago

    Black was satifyingly generic - it did shooting stuff pretty well & looking at the video it does still look pretty darn good.

  • varsas #50 3 years ago

    It seems some people have missed the point of the article i.e. it's meant to be able the technical aspects of the Wii. It's not an article about what makes a game look great.

  • smelly #51 3 years ago

    "i.e. Galaxy also looks lovely, it just doesn't look 50% better than Sunshine that's all? ;) "


    I disagree.. But regardless of which - neither is down to their technical ability - and more down to art choice. Both are stunning looking games whichever way your throw the mustard... and nothing to do with tech (well maybe the fur shaders which were used quite a lot in galaxy were).

    When I play galaxy, i'm not blown away by the graphical techincal acheivements, but the technical acheviement of the gravity based platforming - which is INSANELY clever, or the zero loading screens (yes - i know they're hidden.. but think why cant other games manage that?). I dunno how much power it needs to do the gravity based stuff, but as a programming achievement it's technically very clever. But unfortunately when sites like this discuss "technical ability" they dont seem to be able to get their heads out of the graphics...

  • smelly #52 3 years ago

    "Hmm interesting you'd lable halo 3 as generic seeing as the halo series introduced a huge amount to the fps genre "

    Series.. YES
    3rd one .. No

    But that's taking it off point a lot (sorry!), back to discussing pointless technical stuff... Because we ALL know that tech makes a game FUN.

  • Darren #53 3 years ago

    @ruggedtoast - I concur.

    While I agree that HD was perhaps a step too far for this generation on reflection - just look at how many PS3 and 360 games don't even run at HD resolution - I do think the decision to stick with GameCube era graphics was an odd one, considering how each generation of console hardware normally shows a massive leap in graphical performance too. The Wi isn't even as powerful as the Xbox from what I've heard and I'd imagine that machine would be as cheap as chips to make these days. A more powerful Wii running at standard definition with anti-aliasing capabilities would have been awesome really (look how good Galaxy looks with AA on a PC emulator) and wouldn't have required significantly more powerful hardware really.

    That would also have helped the games look more acceptable on HDTVs with component video instead of the jagfest we have to put up with now. Fact: Wii games looked so ugly on my Sony Bravia HDTV that I decided to keep my old Sony CRT TV exclusively for it and use an RGB SCART cable. I gave my component video lead to my parents!
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 16:58

  • varsas #54 3 years ago

    With the mention of Halo, can anyone explain what the series actually added to FPS games? I've never played it and as far as I can tell it's just a very well executed FPS.

  • smelly #55 3 years ago

    To add to the "artstyle more important than tech argument"..

    Ico STILL looks a hell of a lot better visually than a LOT of modern games running on modern hardware.

    It's not to do with the tech... (erm, i'm repeating myself here arent i? lol)

    But i DO find it fustrating that reviewers put so much emphasis on the tech... Look over at ign, for months they were whacking off over conduit and it's graphical tech.. Then game comes out - and it turns out it was (Apparently - not played it) not actually any FUN!

    Another example : I loved fallout 3, and yes, i was blown away by the technical achievment of the graphics.. for the first 5 minutes of play.. after that i was more engrossed in the gameplay to worry about the graphics and they became second fiddle to me. In fact the ONLY time i even noticed the graphics were when I got fustrated by them due to (here we go again - bad artstyle choices), such as in the subways which all looked EXACTLY the same (Bit of a cop out imho, and made it hard to navigate)

  • smelly #56 3 years ago

    Quote : "(look how good Galaxy looks with AA on a PC emulator)"

    From the screenshots i've seen of galaxy running on a pc emulator.. it looks worse on pc... a lot of the extra effects like rim lighting have gone.

    But gamers dont seem to notice stuff like that.. it's the emperors clothing - tell them "look - hidef with antialiasing - it must be better" and they believe you.


    Quote : "Fact: Wii games looked so ugly on my Sony Bravia HDTV"


    Fact : ALL "lowdef" video looks ugly on Bravia's... because they're shit tvs which dont upscale properly, and therfor look shit displaying anything but their native resolution.

    (never understood why people buy shit expensive equipment then blame the stuff running on them. You wouldnt buy a shit sound system the moan that cd's are crap because they dont sound good in it)
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 17:24

  • Gecks #57 3 years ago

    @CountFapula
    "which is ironic as black was probably the most generic first person shooter in history "

    although i can't really disagree with that statement, i do think it does black a bit of a disservice. it did nothing new per-se, but the combat was just spot on. it was sort of halo-esque in that it put you in an environment, put some bad guys down, and then the set-pieces just created themselves. you fought the same 3 types of badguy for 10 hours or so, with the same weapons and the same techniques, but somehow it all worked for me. a great 'genre-piece' that i'll come back to year after year.

  • StooMonster #58 3 years ago

    Darren said I do think the decision to stick with GameCube era graphics was an odd one ... A more powerful Wii running at standard definition with anti-aliasing capabilities would have been awesome really

    Would it have sold more Wii? I really don't think it would, Wii is mass-market which doesn't care; moreover, as we know most (i.e. more than half) of PS3 and 360 are run on non-HD displays, so Wii graphics are "good enough" for the job.

    Making games look better might not increase sales but would certainly increase cost. Nintendo make a profit on their consoles from day one, unlike Sony and Microsoft who go for the hardware as loss-leader for software profits approach. Increased cost means smaller margins.

    With no increase in sales due to "better graphics" but reduced margins would means lesser profits for Nintendo shareholders; ergo, the management made the right decision and was in no way an "odd one".

  • Wyrm #59 3 years ago

    These tricks are taken for granted these days, but it is a pretty solid indication of the state the Wii is in. Developers not really giving a damn, just turning a buck.

  • smelly #60 3 years ago

    >no increase in sales due to "better graphics"

    Most consumers dont notice those "better graphics". Notice this article goes on about a lot of tech stuff that even a lot of "hardcore" gamers (judging by the comments here) dont even understand or care about.. so why is the average joe who still has a sd tv?

    Look at how bright, and crisp an old game like super mario world looks when compared to the latest 3d fest - an average consumer looks at those 2d and might conclude that SMW looks better (despite it's lack of technical achievement compared to todays games).

    It's been a mantra i've been repeating since the days of the spectrum.. But technical graphical wizardry does not make a game PLAY better. Sure a game with crap graphics can play badly (if you cant see whats going on). And technical achievement (non graphics) CAN make a game play better (the gravity stuff in mario galaxy).

    But wizz bang imagery doesnt save a bad movie.. and nor will it save a bad game.

  • smelly #61 3 years ago

    Why did #65 get a negative? Surely not because i said bravias are crap? I thought everyone knew that?

    That's like buying sound equipment from sony!

  • StooMonster #62 3 years ago

    smelly: like 'em or not Sony Bravia are one of the best selling brands of LCD televisions, not only in UK but around the world, those and Sure Shot cameras are the consumer goods that saved Sony Corp's ass these last couple of years.

    Personally, I prefer Pioneer Kuros for my flatscreen displays.

  • smelly #63 3 years ago

    its not whether i like them.. or whether they're popular (jonas brothers are also popular) - doesnt make them good.

    .. i see so many people complaining about "low def" wii games or low def tv looking bad.. and i can gaurantee 9 times out of 10 they're running on a bravia.

    When 70% (made up number may be more, maybe less) of tv is still lowdef, the majority of films are still on dvd, etc etc.. Paying for a bravia (which for some reasons costs LOADS more than better made televisions) which makes those lower resolutions look more akin to lego - seems really stupid to me...

    .. and even more stupid to then come online and say "the wii looks shit on my bravia" - when it's not just the wii at fault here, but also the fault of the television itself.

    it's got nothing to do with a "sony hate" or any of that nonsense.. I happen to think sony make good games consoles.. Just dont buy sony sound hardware or bravia tvs.. both are overly expensive and both are low quality (compared to the stuff smaller amounts of money can get you elsewehere).

    Sorry - im taking this off topic.. it's just one which keeps arising when people talk about wii graphics.. As i said, it's just as much the tv at fault here as the console.

    EDIT : For the record, i own a sony ericcson phone (Which i love), and erm.. um... well thats it until i get a ps3.

    Edited by 1 at 28/07/09 @ 18:45

  • smelly #64 3 years ago

    >Personally, I prefer Pioneer Kuros for my flatscreen displays.

    when i bought my tv, i went around all the stores asking them to show me the hi def tvs displaying "normal" lowdef video. Most refused, but once i'd looked at a load - i bought my tv based upon which one could display lowdef well (of course it's never going to look as good as a crt because its not its native resolution - and lcds need that). The bravias were the worst i looked at when displaying "normal" video.

    Samsung was the best (at the time.. this was 2 years ago).. but i'm cheap and went the middle ground and bought a lg.

  • smelly #65 3 years ago

    Holey hell!

    I've heard of console fanboys before.. but judging by the negatives i've got - we now have tv fanboys!

    sheesh.. okay .. the bravias you bought are REALLY good! And not shit at displaying low def images at all!

  • PapaSmurf630 #66 3 years ago

    The only thing this article made me think was "Damn I'd like proper sequel to Black".

    Not a boundary pusher for the genre but f**k was it good fun. First time I played it through took me back to how I felt when I first played Medal Of Honour and Medal Of Honour: Underground on the PS1. Proper shooter with none of the other bollocks. Brilliant game!

  • Bagpuss #67 3 years ago

    "this all means that the base design for the core technology inside Wii is the best part of 10 years old. "

    I must admit its an amazing con job Nintendo have done on the public.....£180 for 10yr old technology....

    I really, really despise Nintendo and their holding back of the industry.

    The Wii's success has already ensured there will be no 'next gen' of consoles on the usual 5yr timescale.....

    Tossers.

  • figaro7 #68 3 years ago

    While ive been playing the conduit flatout online, the graphics do harken back to perfect dark zero. No its never going to look as good, but the models are really well done and the singleplayer is just as generic as perfect dark zeros. IMO its the multiplayer that digs this game out of an average rating to a good rating. Its very good, the weapons feel great, the maps are good and its just some old fashioned TDM good fun.

  • Quixz #69 3 years ago

    The Wii will never catch up to the Xbox 1 THE END.

  • ChadSexington #70 3 years ago

    In what universe are Motorstorm and Halo 3 bad looking games?

  • Alkeno #71 3 years ago

    I also own both a next gen console and a penis but neither feels threatened by informed and educated technical discussion. That was huge fun, +1.

    A pity The Counduit didn't have a good art direction, the tech is good and the Wii needs some good looking games. Well, maybe no the Wii itself, but the bunch of gamers that care about tech and own a Wii (the machine is 50% faster than the GC, so it better show it from time to time!).

    I fully agree with Darren about Mario Gallaxy. It's beautiful and looks wonderful, but if we go down to the tech, it's not that impressive. It's a good example of a brilliantly thought Nintendo game. More developers on 360 and PS3 should follow the Mario Gallaxy route:
    1. Gameplay must rock.
    2. Art direction must rock.
    3. Push the hardware, but don't cross the limit! (please, don't allow your game to drop below 30fps...).

    I understand some devs prefer their games to look good than to play good (take Killzone2, looks gorgeous but the price is huge input lag and frequent drops to 20fps). Compare to the guys at Infinity Ward who make their games sub-HD and rock solid 60fps (no wonder why CoD4:MW is such a hit, still being played by millions online).

    PS: Never understood why Sony has such a huge reputation on many areas. They have some strong points, of course, but so many times they claim to be the best and end up being average in performance, overpriced and overhyped. Not bad products at all, but neither cream of the crop as they try to sell.

  • smelly #72 3 years ago

    "I fully agree with Darren about Mario Gallaxy. It's beautiful and looks wonderful, but if we go down to the tech, it's not that impressive."


    Now are you talking graphical tech here or just general tech?

    Because im telling you making a platformer based around irregular based planets is VERY good tech.

    Especially when compared to a modern fps which are for the most part based on flat planes with walls.
    Edited by 1 at 29/07/09 @ 01:57

  • Quixz #73 3 years ago

    Don't know why i got some negatives for my last comment, lets face it the Xbox 1 is and will remain superior to the Wii.

  • peterfll #74 3 years ago

    Aren't people funny?

    I enjoyed all the Halo games. Nope, I must be wrong they're all generic crap. I've had some best-of-this-gen experiences playing my Wii (yes Galaxy, I'm looking at you). Nope, must be wrong as the Wii isn't "the Xbox 1" and Nintendo have deliberately set out to destroy the industry. I must have shit eyesight too as apparently my Sony Bravia TV is crap, along with all Bravia's, regardless of what owners or industry think of them. I probably know it's crap, I'm just hurtin' after spending the money on such crap I don't want to admit it.

    Good, that's cleared all that up then, thanks.

  • Evolution #75 3 years ago

    Well argued Bloodkult...

    I think all of smelly's posts in this comments thread is proof enough that the karma system is crap, even when he makes valid points that people can argue he just gets negatives.

    I play my Wii on an HD tv with a component cable, I have no complaints.

  • Darren #76 3 years ago

    @smelly - "Fact : ALL "lowdef" video looks ugly on Bravia's... because they're shit tvs which dont upscale properly, and therefore look shit displaying anything but their native resolution."

    Not true. Standard definition with AA looks fine as seen on the 360 and PS3 as does Sky Digital and DVDs even without upscaling. The problem with the Wii isn't the low resolution particularly, it's the lack of any kind of anti-aliasing. That is why I recommend people stick with CRT TVs for the Wii and use RGB SCART (as I do) but then I'd imagine 98.9% of its owners probably do anyway. Component video might look sharper but it shows up the low resolution and jaggies in all their unsplendid glory. IMO, there's no point in using component video for non-HD content for exactly that reason.

    "(never understood why people buy shit expensive equipment then blame the stuff running on them. You wouldnt buy a shit sound system the moan that cd's are crap because they dont sound good in it)"

    So the Wii is shit is it... or was it the way I read that? ;)

    Or did you mean my Bravia HDTV (which certainly isn't)? Besides, I did not buy it for the Wii anyway, I bought it for my Xbox 360, PS3 and Blu-ray player as I'm sure you *are* aware and the stuff they output looks awesome. No-one in their right mind would buy an HDTV to use with only the Wii! That would be very silly. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 29/07/09 @ 09:43

  • Darren #77 3 years ago

    @Alenko - Galaxy looks gorgeous because of the art design and colour, like many of the best Nintendo games, and it's the reason why it won't date as quickly as more technically impressive games on the higher end systems bar the low resolution. Technically the game isn't that impressive at all IMO for a current generation title, although it does manage 60 fps and no tearing, something many PS3 and Xbox 360 games utterly fail to deliver. Kudos for that. It looks very nice though, unlike the vast majority of Wii games, so I've no complaints except it would have been nice to have had some AA.

    As I said earlier Nintendo games have looked great when they aren't trying to look realistic. The Wind Waker is still one of the most beautiful Nintendo games I've ever played and it has hardly aged since its release unlike the more realistic looking and more recent Twilight Princess for example.

    This is a feature on the technical merits of the Wii and in my view the machine has very few by today's hardware standards. Certainly any praise for the hardware can also be said of the seven year old GameCube for the most part, and that wasn't particularly advanced when it was released back in 2002; the Xbox totally trounced it graphically. Wii games that look great do so because of stellar art design, one of Nintendo's strengths usually***, not because they're technically amazing.

    That said, it's probably true of most games because generic/bland design can ruin a game's looks far more than jaggies or tearing can. The Xbox 360 and PS3 have their fair share of those but sadly for the Wii it has the highest quota of generic/bland looking games in my own experience which has the unfortunate effect of making all its hardware shortcomings all the more apparent.

    *** = Oddly, I'm not a fan of the overly simplistic style used for the Miis especially and games like Wii Sports and Wii Fit because they look less like Wii visuals and more like N64 era ones!

  • grussbarbar #78 3 years ago

    "However, what isn't so welcome is the notion of dragging the reticule all the way over to the edges of the screen to spin around on the spot. Insofar as the aim-and-fire mechanic works well, the notion of essentially pointing off screen to move your in-game "head" feels somewhat counter-intuitive."

    For this I'd very much recommend tweaking your controls so the bounding box (outside which the camera moves with your pointer) is a lot smaller then what is shown in the video. With a (much) smaller box and a slightly faster turn speed, I haven't even come close to pointing to the edge of the screen in my game so far.

    Also, although the story isn't that original, it still might be good not to include plot twists iin your video's. You could also give a spoiler warning, but since the part I'm talking about (the betrayal) seems like a completely unneccessary part of the video, I'd say it would be better to just leave it out.

  • Giobbi #79 3 years ago

    Farticus maximus this:
    "Not being able to turn and shoot makes it an instant no-no."

    It is a BIG mistake in the article, obviously you can use the pointer to turn also.
    Commands are configurable you can go from a clumpsy RE4 controls to a PC-like mouse-keys config.

    The Conduit is very Agile, much more that any dualstick fps

  • smelly #80 3 years ago

    So I point out that galaxy was a great technical achievement being a platformer based on irregular shaped planets - and i get negative marks?

    Sheesh. This thread must be overun with the xbox owning sony bravia loving crowd.

    Ah well.. Serves me right for trying to have a discussion i guess.

  • Skurmedel #81 3 years ago

    @Darren: I understand what you mean, Red Steel had pretty nice animations, but you can't give credit to the hardware for that.

  • lukaz #82 3 years ago

    Right, many games on Wii run at 60fps. It's a shame so few do it on Xbox360/PS3.

  • Alkeno #83 3 years ago

    It is funny how thing work out at the end, isn't it?

    PS3 and 360 are vastly superior hardware. People love the realistic looking graphics and devs go overboard, making amazing looking games... At the end of the day, vastly superior hardware end up with games that don't vsync and barely do 20fps.

    Wii is notoriously inferior. People know it and don't expect graphic excellence. Devs realize and stop worrying so much about graphics, keeping them simple. Wii ends up with most games running smoothly at 60fps.

    Live IS complicated.

  • BonzoBanana #84 3 years ago

    One thing I'll give the conduit credit for is its frame rates they seemed pretty high and stable to me. I was massively disappointed with the visuals. I buy first person shooters as I love the single player experience rather than online. I like a scripted story and enjoy exploring the landscape as well as the action. For me the conduit is disappointing because its gameplay was weak and it was visually dull.

    I actually booted up the dreamcast and half life to see how its visuals compared to the conduit and they were better on dreamcast a lot of the time. The dreamcast graphics seemed more realistic with a greater amount of textures. I could see the polygons were less on the dreamcast but the texturing was higher resolution and far more generous. Even with the dreamcast's occasional frame rate problems and consistant disc loading it still played a 100x better than the conduit because Half Life is still an amazing game.

    The conduit is an appalling fps game because its level design and ideas are extremely dated. When you look at the amazing choice of fps games on the original xbox like halo, half life 2, black, far cry and numerous others all featuring proper 5.1 sound you realise the wii is just not competitive in real terms.

    However that said if you look at triforce arcade games which is based on gamecube hardware, nothing more and the wii is much more powerful you realise the wii is still vastly under-utilised.

    High Voltage do not have a brilliant reputation. They were responsible for a load of dire Atari Jaguar games that helped kill that console. Mediocre to average best describes their output. No one should be surprised the conduit is poor. High Voltage should get the quantum engine into the hands of decent game artists and designers as soon as possible.

  • NeoTechni #85 3 years ago

    " Pointing at the opponent and shooting is obviously something that is a huge advantage for the Wii over the PS3 and Xbox 360."

    Eh? PS3 has the Guncon 3+ Time Crisis 4's FPS mode. And it doesn't make you push the cursor to the edge of the screen to turn.

    PS3 also has games that use a mouse. Like Unreal

    If anything, PS3 has the advantage here.

  • NeoTechni #86 3 years ago

    "I really, really despise Nintendo and their holding back of the industry. "

    Agreed. Not only have the diverted developmental resources from 360/PS3 this gen, but they've crippled next gen as well by showing Sony/MS how to make the most money.

    "But have you ever bought a game just on the grounds of the numbers its crunching?"

    Yes. Silent Hill Origins for PSP. And it was a damned good game too.

    I agree with Bloodkult.

    "Next Gen does not = next gen graphics"

    Next gen Processing power = next gen gameplay AND graphics.

    Anyone thinking it's just graphics doesn't have a clue. Or fell for Nintendo's lies
    Edited by 1 at 05/08/09 @ 22:57