Sonic Boom: Fire & Ice

[Tara]

Honestly, I'm struggling to figure out how you CAN'T see the difference.  Again, none of the above games are exactly console quality, but none of them are lacking in clarity, color depth, and geometric consistency.  The only one that really comes close to looking anything like the Shattered Crystal screenshots is the Mario 3D Land one (and it also has an excuse being a relatively early game for the system anyway), but that's probably because the image was blown up to a resolution it wasn't meant to support anyway.  Especially if you look at the image in their full sizes and not just the way the boards scales them down, Shattered Crystal looks incredibly blocky, fuzzy, and obscure, in addition to the actual geometry of the character models being extremely wonky.

I'm simply failing to see how you can't see the VAST difference between the two.

[Ellipsis-Ultima]

That opening scene was pretty good! But they get their powers from the fissure thing? Erm, ookay.....

I'm feeling a bit ehhh on the gameplay though, seems like it's improved in terms of quality...

[BradAric]

"VAST difference" is an absolute joke to be honest. There is a difference, as I have admitted several times. But it's not nearly as pronounced as you're claiming. You act like we're comparing Sonic Rush to The Last of Us or something. Could it look better? Of course. Do other games on the 3DS look better? As I've said, yes! But we need to come to terms with the fact that as long as they are on Nintendo consoles, Sonic games are not going to look as good as they could or should. That's my only point: I'm not trying to say there are no graphical problems or that it couldn't possibly look even a little bit better on the 3DS, I'm just pointing out that Nintendo consoles have always been under powered and it shouldn't be particularly surprising when a game on one doesn't look great.

[StaticMania]

If there weren't that many games that managed to look "great" by working with the system's graphical limitations, then this wouldn't be that surprising...the only thing problem here is that Sonic Boom-ing looks bad for the standards of 3DS games. The comparison to other consoles was just unnecessary. Is like..."Oh, Nintendo can't do graphics because everyone else is just so much better." We need none of that biz.

 

Just now, BradAric said:

...comparing Sonic Rush to The Last of Us...

A just as good example would've been Mario 64 - Super Mario Galaxy...the comparison isn't that exaggerated.

[pppp]

7 hours ago, BradAric said:

"VAST difference" is an absolute joke to be honest. There is a difference, as I have admitted several times. But it's not nearly as pronounced as you're claiming. You act like we're comparing Sonic Rush to The Last of Us or something. Could it look better? Of course. Do other games on the 3DS look better? As I've said, yes! But we need to come to terms with the fact that as long as they are on Nintendo consoles, Sonic games are not going to look as good as they could or should. That's my only point: I'm not trying to say there are no graphical problems or that it couldn't possibly look even a little bit better on the 3DS, I'm just pointing out that Nintendo consoles have always been under powered and it shouldn't be particularly surprising when a game on one doesn't look great.

You have no idea what you're talking about, any console is capable of appealing graphics as long as the artists know what they're doing. Great art direction and clever choice of graphical style is what dictates an appealing looking game. That's why Tales of Graces on the Wii:

Looks much more appealing than Lightning Returns on the PS3:

Look at that beautiful plastic sand. Also here's the famous dog from the game:

 

Are you gonna say LR looks better? Cause if so I'm afraid I have to officially say that you should check out your eyesight, you might have problems.

My point is that yes we should be surprised if a renowned company like SEGA delivers a 3DS game that looks more like a DS game. Sonic Boom doesn't look like crap cause of the 3DS, it looks like crap because whoever are the art director and graphics director are incompetent people who didn't go for a graphics style that compliments the hardware they're working on.

[Shadowlax]

just to mention what the 3ds is capible of

There is a resident evil game on 3ds and it looks aiight

And that's one of the hardest things to do, because those games look more realstic and can't rely on cartoony visuals. And that looks pretty ok , and better than fire and ice

[Marcello]

19 hours ago, BradAric said:

Barely. It's ridiculously under powered. It's fun, don't get me wrong, but it's kind of garbage in terms of hardware. This is actually the exact level I expect from a 3DS game and every once in awhile I'm pleasantly surprised to see something slightly more decent.

It's much more powerful than the PS1. It's somewhere between Dreamcast and PS2, but with more modern shaders.

[Badnik Mechanic]

15 hours ago, BradAric said:

I don't think any of those screenshots you posted look "miles" better than this. 

You are joking right? The examples shown look light years better, let alone miles better.

 

Also is it just me or were people doing this when ROL was coming out? Claiming the visuals were not that bad despite the evidence that they were badly lacking?

[BradAric]

Static, but there aren't. There are very few games that look great on the 3DS. There are games that look alright and games that look pretty good for 3DS standards...but not much looks great on it.

pppp "appealing" graphics is different from "good" ones. You can make a game look good if you use different graphical styles, such as Wind Waker on the GameCube, and certainly console alone does not determine if a game looks better or worse. There are Xbox games that look better than 360 games, DS games that look better than 3DS games, etc. That has nothing to do with the standard set by the hardware. Generally speaking, games on Nintendo consoles look worse than their counterparts.

Marcello, yeah and that's barely an improvement. Being somewhere between Dreamcast and PS2 means there's less than a generation of improvements from PS1, whereas this handheld is more than a decade newer. That's a pathetic increase in power, and while the Vita is capable of remote playing PS4 games and handling ports of PS3 games, having a competitor that's stuck between PS1 and PS2 is sad. Now, it happens to have better game variety which is why it's still a better handheld, but in terms of hardware it's indefensible.

EDIT: Mayor D, Rise of Lyric is in the same boat...the Wii U is a new gen console with the power of last gen consoles. It's not that either game looks stunning, it's that nobody should be surprised that this game looks mediocre. And no, I'm not joking. The difference is minimal.

[Marcello]

17 minutes ago, BradAric said:

Marcello, yeah and that's barely an improvement. Being somewhere between Dreamcast and PS2 means there's less than a generation of improvements from PS1, whereas this handheld is more than a decade newer.

If the 3DS is more powerful than the Dreamcast, it's a generation more powerful.

Vita is irrelevant. We all know 3DS doesn't hold a candle to it power-wise. It being weak to today's standards is also irrelevant. Fact is, it's not just barely above PS1. It is also more than capable of having better looking games than Fire & Ice.

Edit: And, I just noticed I skipped a page of discussion.

[BradAric]

9 minutes ago, Marcello said:

If the 3DS is more powerful than the Dreamcast, it's a generation more powerful.

Vita is irrelevant. We all know 3DS doesn't hold a candle to it power-wise. It being weak to today's standards is also irrelevant. Fact is, it's not just barely above PS1. It is also more than capable of having better looking games than Fire & Ice.

I understand what you're saying with the first point since Dreamcast is technically the generation after PS1, however the fact that it doesn't reach PS2 standards means it does not follow Sony's generational leap.

Vita is not irrelevant, as that should be what other handhelds right now look like, but the 3DS falls short just as every Nintendo console does. Yes they can look better than Fire & Ice...I've said that SEVERAL times now. I have never made the point that Fire & Ice can't possibly look any better. I've just been saying that we should not be surprised when a 3DS looks bad because it's under powered. Could it look a little better? Once again, yes. That's never been what I'm arguing yet it seems to be the point all of you are making.

EDIT: Just saw your edit lol. Yeah, they seem to have the wrong impression of the argument I'm making, so that extra page may help with some clarification. I'm not saying this looks good or that the 3DS is exactly as powerful as the PS1...just that the 3DS should be better and that we shouldn't be surprised when a 3DS game doesn't look good.

[Indigo Rush]

Sure is PS1 quality in here

[BradAric]

For crying out loud...I said it was better than PS1, just not by as much as it should be. Also, the only one of those shots that actually looks good is the Resident Evil one that Shadowlax already posted...

[CottonCandy]

Yeah, there are alot of 3ds games that look amazing on the system. But there's a butch of 3ds games, usually made by cheap gaming studio to tie-in with the latest game/movie, that look pretty underwhelming. I guess Fire and ice just so happens to be apart of it visually...I guess. I don't think sanzaru can't make anything look appealing. I've played Sly Cooper 4 and I thought the game looked pretty good for the PS3.

So it's quite obvious this game isn't the project sanzaru is putting their all into to. :V 

[pppp]

1 hour ago, BradAric said:

Static, but there aren't. There are very few games that look great on the 3DS. There are games that look alright and games that look pretty good for 3DS standards...but not much looks great on it.

pppp "appealing" graphics is different from "good" ones. You can make a game look good if you use different graphical styles, such as Wind Waker on the GameCube, and certainly console alone does not determine if a game looks better or worse. There are Xbox games that look better than 360 games, DS games that look better than 3DS games, etc. That has nothing to do with the standard set by the hardware. Generally speaking, games on Nintendo consoles look worse than their counterparts.

Marcello, yeah and that's barely an improvement. Being somewhere between Dreamcast and PS2 means there's less than a generation of improvements from PS1, whereas this handheld is more than a decade newer. That's a pathetic increase in power, and while the Vita is capable of remote playing PS4 games and handling ports of PS3 games, having a competitor that's stuck between PS1 and PS2 is sad. Now, it happens to have better game variety which is why it's still a better handheld, but in terms of hardware it's indefensible.

EDIT: Mayor D, Rise of Lyric is in the same boat...the Wii U is a new gen console with the power of last gen consoles. It's not that either game looks stunning, it's that nobody should be surprised that this game looks mediocre. And no, I'm not joking. The difference is minimal.

Oh so visuals being appealing doesn't mean the graphics people made a good job, yeah that makes sense.

So graphics are only good if they're as good as the current highest standard? By that logic every console game ever made is pathetic since games always look better on high end PCs.

[___-_]

Hmm. It's probably just coincidental, but I couldn't help but notice the little homage to Sonic's rock jumping scene in Sonic CD's intro cutscene. Even did the whole Sonic close up to him spin dashing through the glacier. And considering this game's called Sonic "Boom"...well yea.

[BradAric]

1 hour ago, pppp said:

Oh so visuals being appealing doesn't mean the graphics people made a good job, yeah that makes sense.

So graphics are only good if they're as good as the current highest standard? By that logic every console game ever made is pathetic since games always look better on high end PCs.

No, my point was using different styles to get around hardware issues doesn't make the hardware good. My wording could have been a little bit better admittedly, but it still seems obvious that I wouldn't be dumb enough to say the people creating the graphics do a bad job if they use particular styles. Come on...

[StaticMania]

Just now, BradAric said:

No, my point was using different styles to get around hardware issues doesn't make the hardware good. 

Being able to work around hardware limitations to make a fine looking game is a perfectly fine accomplishment. The hardware in question lagging behind others doesn't exactly make it bad and it just seems like you're just trying to keep putting it down just because it can't compete.

[BradAric]

22 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

Being able to work around hardware limitations to make a fine looking game is a perfectly fine accomplishment. The hardware in question lagging behind others doesn't exactly make it bad and it just seems like you're just trying to keep putting it down just because it can't compete.

Yes, it's a fine accomplishment. There's no denying that and I'm not trying to.

But YES I am putting it down because it can't compete. It should be so much better. That's actually my entire point really lol. It doesn't mean the games aren't fun, it doesn't mean the developers don't do a good job for what they have to work with, it doesn't mean I haven't spent hundreds of hours on my 3DS...it just means it's supposed to be better, but it lags behind everything else. That's something Nintendo has been known for since the N64 when people were upset they were still using cartridges and they started to lose 3rd party support (which they have yet to regain). And I see that as bad. I see that as a problem for Nintendo. I think Nintendo has the IPs and the creativity to be so much more, but they consistently hold themselves back (in more ways than just graphics, but we'll stick to that one discussion for now), and I now expect games to look mediocre on their hardware.

Here's an example from the last generation of handhelds...Rivals looked significantly better than Rush. Rush was a better game, but it didn't look good. Had Nintendo been keeping up with Sony's hardware, we could have had a game that played like Rush but looked like Rivals...and I don't think it's unreasonable to hold that against Nintendo. If they kept up with hardware, we'd be in a much better place right now.

[Shaddy Zaphod]

 

Also yo Rivals didn't look better than Rush. It had more technical prowess but Rush's animated backgrounds were far more aesthetically pleasing

[BradAric]

I mean graphically, not aesthetically. There's a fine line there. I think Rivals looked better in terms of how well done everything was, but Rush had more interesting components. I wouldn't have changed a thing about Rush's aesthetics, or gameplay, but I would love for it to have the fidelity of Rivals if that makes sense.

[Tara]

Well, I'm not exactly sure what to say.  I don't like to just appeal to the majority, but I do feel like the grand majority of the people in this topic also see a huge difference in the technical quality and amount of detail compared to the typical 3DS game and Shattered Crystal/Fire & Ice.  That being said, I never said it was a tremendous improvement over the original DS, and I certainly don't feel the Resident Evil screenshot was a fair comparison since it's in a huge minority, but I certainly can see that the 3DS is far beyond "barely above" PS1 graphics.  Smash Bros. in particular looks better than a good deal of some of the most profound GameCube games ever did.

[LATER BUDDY]

Exclusive top of the line coverage from Anime Expo from the guys at Hogcast Speedy Delivery the Number One Independant Sonic and Pizza Podcast on the Planet. Check it out, some exclusive info, get fired up baby 'cause Sonic is back

[Tara]

12 minutes ago, Tracer said:

Exclusive top of the line coverage from Anime Expo from the guys at Hogcast Speedy Delivery the Number One Independant Sonic and Pizza Podcast on the Planet. Check it out, some exclusive info, get fired up baby 'cause Sonic is back

"No Chao!  AX Exlcusive!"

Don't know why that made me laugh like it did. XD

[BradAric]

2 hours ago, Tara said:

Well, I'm not exactly sure what to say.  I don't like to just appeal to the majority, but I do feel like the grand majority of the people in this topic also see a huge difference in the technical quality and amount of detail compared to the typical 3DS game and Shattered Crystal/Fire & Ice.  That being said, I never said it was a tremendous improvement over the original DS, and I certainly don't feel the Resident Evil screenshot was a fair comparison since it's in a huge minority, but I certainly can see that the 3DS is far beyond "barely above" PS1 graphics.  Smash Bros. in particular looks better than a good deal of some of the most profound GameCube games ever did.

It certainly seems that way. I dunno, I definitely see a difference, just not enough of one to surprise me or turn me off from the game. Clearly I'm in the minority there, so I suppose we just have different scales we judge graphics by and it's causing a rather unnecessary disagreement since we all agree that it could look better. I see a lot fewer flaws in graphics than many seem to, but also see less improvement unless it's made obvious. Perhaps I'm just not detail oriented enough to really have this debate.

I just wish Nintendo would do their hardware better and match their potential. I grew up a Nintendo person and only found Sega after Sonic came to GameCube (and only branched out to Xbox after Rare was sold to Microsoft), so it's frustrating to see them struggle in ways that I see other companies succeed in as a multi platform gamer now.