News: Call of Duty 5 Wii - Close to 360/PS3 Versions Page 1

knighty 09.06.2008#1

I'll believe it when I see it lol.

( Edited 16.01.2013 06:32 by Guest )

Martin_ 09.06.2008#2

Same here. I view the Wii as not significantly capable of anything more than the GC. Furthermore, if the PS2 is getting a version of this, then the Wii one is fucked. not that there's anything wrong with PS2.

( Edited 16.01.2013 06:32 by Guest )

irfy 09.06.2008#3

So close, but yet so very far.

( Edited 16.01.2013 06:32 by Guest )

Fenton 09.06.2008#4

Here is a GAMECUBE game from 2003 - 5 years ago!

UNLESS IT LOOKS BETTER THAN THIS, CALL OF DUTY 5 IS SHIT

( Edited 16.01.2013 06:32 by Guest )

BrawlBumBoy 09.06.2008#5

Those pics are cool. Unlike the idea of COD going shit again. Ah well, they will learn one day Smilie

( Edited 12.12.2012 06:26 by Guest )

My pictures wont appear so heres a smiley

knighty 09.06.2008#6

There hasn't been a single Wii game to approach the level of Rogue Squadron 2/3 yet.

Except RE4 maybe.

( Edited 12.12.2012 06:26 by Guest )

tiamat1990 09.06.2008#7

Ha! That'll be the day.

( Edited 12.12.2012 06:26 by Guest )

Darkflame 09.06.2008#8

"There hasn't been a single Wii game to approach the level of Rogue Squadron 2/3 yet."

Mario Galaxy and Metroid Corruption, imho.

But its hard to compare as they are different styles.

Certainly most people (developers) "forget" how good some cube games looked.

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

Wiill 10.06.2008#9

Well, they've got the COD4 engine running on Wii, which is encouraging, and as long as there isn't a PS2 version it may well end up looking good.

2-year development cycle is encourage too. But then, I'm gonna be getting a decent PC this summer, so I might just get COD4 on the cheap instead...

knighty said:
There hasn't been a single Wii game to approach the level of Rogue Squadron 2/3 yet.
Except RE4 maybe.

As has been said elsewhere: MP3 (although lots of the large scale exteriors look shit, but then with Rogue Squadron the large scale stuff is the focus, while detailed smaller environments are the focus in Metroid) looks pretty damn good.

I'd say Super Mario Galaxy is graphically superior, but the art style is very different so a direct comparison is a bit foolish. I'd say the scale and detail (and draw distance) of the environments is comparable.

Well, if this is rubbish, there's always the Conduit, which could be good, and that Quantum of Solace game...

Raff 10.06.2008#10

seeing the Americans do battle with Japanese folk in the run up to Pearl Harbor.

lolwtfbbq

It's going to be shit and you jolly well know it.

Weo 10.06.2008#11

In this case, i dont care how good the graphics are, its still WWIIand who wants to relive that...some more.

Conduit FC: 0431-6660-0908

aburnett 10.06.2008#12

The RS engine is not something that can be easilly recreated for an FPS, if what I've read is to be believed. The reason why it looked so good is that it wasjust enviorments, lights and a few explosion effects. TIE's usually came in abundance on the levels where there wasn't much in the way of enviorments - the exception being Cloud City and how much did that slow down.

Laurelin 10.06.2008#13

aburnett said:
The RS engine is not something that can be easilly recreated for an FPS, if what I've read is to be believed. The reason why it looked so good is that it wasjust enviorments, lights and a few explosion effects. TIE's usually came in abundance on the levels where there wasn't much in the way of enviorments - the exception being Cloud City and how much did that slow down.

and actually, Factor 5 did a lot of middle ware. They sold these graphics- and sound-engines... *lol*
No one cared. I hated them all for that back in GC-days.

Hey, but actually developers emphasizing the fact, that they look close to X360 and PS3 is, that they care about people caring about this! That's a good sign.
And I give them advantage. Show me, that you are telling the truth and I praise you. I won't buy your game, as I despise WW-shooters, but it's the spirit that counts.

And yes: Mp3 looked extremely good! Imho.

I find your lack of faith disturbing!

Fenton 10.06.2008#14

aburnett said:
The RS engine is not something that can be easilly recreated for an FPS, if what I've read is to be believed. The reason why it looked so good is that it wasjust enviorments, lights and a few explosion effects. TIE's usually came in abundance on the levels where there wasn't much in the way of enviorments - the exception being Cloud City and how much did that slow down.

I cannot think of any surface on the game that wasnt bump mapped like crazy.

It was infact the very first mission (when walking through the corridors) where you really see how impressive looking the game is, sure the on foot section was shit, but it gives you a chance to look at everything close up and it looks very impressive.

Canyarion 10.06.2008#15

"improvement of AI with enemies utilising unique tactics to outsmart players"
You mean just like they said 10 years ago?

JoshSL 10.06.2008#16

I think Mario Galaxy looks better than RS3. I don\'t care if it\'s technically worse, I think it looks better. In some ways, obviously RS3 does realistic graphics and textures very well on GC.

I maintain that the Wii is more powerful than the XBOX and we have yet to see more games that show what it can do.

Other than that I agree with knighty, I don\'t believe this, and when they say this will \"look close to PS3/360 versions\", it\'s probably a huge overexaggeration, or the PS3/360 versions look shit. It\'s just not possible to make it \"nearly\" that good on Wii, but with the right direction I think it could look very good for what the WIi is capable of.

I never expected Activision to be the ones to take this kind of stance on the Wii TBH. I thought at least EA would try it first.

EDIT: I hope it has everything that CoD3 lacked.

( Edited 10.06.2008 10:42 by SuperLink )

Twitter | C3 Writer/Moderator | Backloggery

knighty 10.06.2008#17

Superlink you only need to look at Halo 2 to see how the Wii is either not being pushed or simply ISN'T as powerful. The only reason people bitched about Halo 3 graphics was because they weren't so remarkably ahead of their time like Halo 2. I personally don't think Galaxy looks good at all. For me they totally lost half of Mario to me. There was too much blocky shit and hardly any sprawling planets.

Darkflame 10.06.2008#18

blocky?
Galaxys easily the smoothest looking game on the Wii.
And a heck of a lot smoother looking then most Xbox1 games, for that matter.

oh, and really Halo2 dosnt look that great.
Some of the faces at the start are hidious.
(not that the wii has done better mind..but then,nothins tried.)

As for the \"sprawling planets\" they were the most dull, boring parts of the game :p

Xbox1 wasnt hugely more powerfull then the cube anyway.
It was specificaly better at draw-distances and bumpmapping, but actualy weaker at multi-pass shadeing.
There was a difference, but not as huge as most people claim.

Its crazy that so many developers seem to treat the
Wii at PS2 level, when its almost double the processing power of the cube (cpu/gpu/ram), which in turn quite a bit more powerfull then the ps2.

Of course, its quite hard to compare accurately because raw mhz specs are normaly pretty meaningless, and each company bullshits about its polygons-per-second stats.

( Edited 10.06.2008 12:45 by Darkflame )

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

knighty 10.06.2008#19

I'm referring to the blocky levels. The techy ones.

patjuan32 10.06.2008#20

Its crazy that so many developers seem to treat the
Wii at PS2 level, when its almost double the processing power of the cube (cpu/gpu/ram), which in turn quite a bit more powerfull then the ps2.

No, It actually is not. Developers are using the cheapest technology that they can use to make a Wii game to keep development cost down in order to make the most profit. This is why most developers are not developing Wii toolsets or utilizing third party engines designed for the Wii, like the Unity, the Quantum3, the Vicious Engine, the Torque engine, and the Gamebryo. They see the Wii only as a revenue stream.

Darkflame 10.06.2008#21

But it IS crazy because when you put effort in you sale MORE.
The Wii is no different to any other system...the PS2 or DS specificaly. Its the biggest saler, it gets the most rubbish.
To rise above that stuff, you gota put effort in.

Its all about revenue stream indeed, but for some bezire reason its about taking revenue from the Wii, and then blowing it on expensive PS3/Xbox360 projects that probably wont turn a profit.
==========

Anyway, lets remind ourselfs of some lovely Mario Galaxy graphics, showcase some technical things most developers arnt doing (links shamelessly nicked from someone else);

Fur.
Lovely Fur.
Used in Mario Galaxy and...err..thats it.
Used on a few more cube games, however.
Specificaly Crystal Chronicals.
Allthough even SquareEnix couldnt be bothered to use it on the Wii game. (and space isnt an issue for this sort of code)

Bump mapped specular by the looks of it.
Very nice.
A few Wii games do use bump maps, but its few and far between, and not for effects like this.

Image for

Refraction.
Distorting the screen without a drop in framerate.
Nintendo do this time and time again in their games, from these magnifying planets, to subtle heat-distortions above fires in Zelda.
Again, another effect SquareEnix did on the cube very well.
For some reason though, these days the Crystals of Crystal Chronicals have stoped doing this.
Why on earth is that?

Image for

Pretty high-res textures on the ground there, with an irregular surface tarrian.
Not as high-res as a typical 360 game, but certainly better then the completely flat ground thats normal on most 3rd party games.

Finaly we finnish with a good example of lighting.
No self-shadowing, but good self-illumination on a fall-off curve tied to enviromental lights.
Really gives Mario an almost FMV-like quality to it.

Nintendos skilled, but they have no magic specs or chip-access that gives them more abilitys then everyone else.
It shouldnt seem like one company is codeing on a completely different system to everyone else!

( Edited 10.06.2008 16:45 by Darkflame )

Edit this post:

But it IS crazy because when you put effort in you sale MORE.
The Wii is no different to any other system...the PS2 or DS specificaly. Its the biggest saler, it gets the most rubbish.
To rise above that stuff, you gota put effort in.

Its all about revenue stream indeed, but for some bezire reason its about taking revenue from the Wii, and then blowing it on expensive PS3/Xbox360 projects that probably wont turn a profit.
==========

Anyway, lets remind ourselfs of some lovely Mario Galaxy graphics, showcase some technical things most developers arnt doing (links shamelessly nicked from someone else);

[img]http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/MarioGalaxy-04.jpg[/img]

Fur.
Lovely Fur.
Used in Mario Galaxy and...err..thats it.
Used on a few more cube games, however.
Specificaly Crystal Chronicals.
Allthough even SquareEnix couldnt be bothered to use it on the Wii game. (and space isnt an issue for this sort of code)

[img]http://kungfurodeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/super-mario-galaxy-20060914080419050.jpg[/img]

Bump mapped specular by the looks of it.
Very nice.
A few Wii games do use bump maps, but its few and far between, and not for effects like this.

[img width=560]http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/MarioGalaxy-24.jpg[/img]

Refraction.
Distorting the screen without a drop in framerate.
Nintendo do this time and time again in their games, from these magnifying planets, to subtle heat-distortions above fires in Zelda.
Again, another effect SquareEnix did on the cube very well.
For some reason though, these days the Crystals of Crystal Chronicals have stoped doing this.
Why on earth is that?

[img width=560]http://media.arstechnica.com/reviews/games/super-mario-galaxy-review.media/5.jpg[/img]

Pretty high-res textures on the ground there, with an irregular surface tarrian.
Not as high-res as a typical 360 game, but certainly better then the completely flat ground thats normal on most 3rd party games.

[img]http://www.gamepro.com/nintendo/wii/games/previews/images/106129-1-1.jpg[/img]

Finaly we finnish with a good example of lighting.
No self-shadowing, but good self-illumination on a fall-off curve tied to enviromental lights.
Really gives Mario an almost FMV-like quality to it.

Nintendos skilled, but they have no magic specs or chip-access that gives them more abilitys then everyone else.
It shouldnt seem like one company is codeing on a completely different system to everyone else!<p/>

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

knighty 10.06.2008#22

That\'s called fairy lighting and it\'s piss easy. All you do is interpolate between the colour and another colour based on the dot product between the surface normal and view vector.

Fur effects are, again, easy but hardly suitable for most games.

Distortion effects are also very easy. Just render it all to a normal texture and use that to displace the colours on your post processing pass. Why other games don\'t do it? Don\'t ask me.

( Edited 10.06.2008 16:53 by knighty )

trgdr777 10.06.2008#23

The fact that these effects aren't THAT difficult is what makes it more upsetting. Sure you can improve on Mario Galaxy, but the bottom line is it looked very good. It was polished, the art was great, and it was fun. At this point I'm not really wishing that everyone will push the system to the limits. I just want them to give it some freaking effort. Hopefully that's what Treyarch is trying to do... even though I'm not interested in the game lol.

JoshSL 10.06.2008#24

Like I said, I don\'t care if Galaxy is technically underwhelming, it looks fucking awesome for what I\'ve seen on Wii so far.

If you disagree then that\'s fine, I personally remember people raving about Halo 2\'s graphics, seeing them and thinking \"That\'s it..?\".

Then again, I think that about most games people rave about. Mario Galaxy is different because I think it really stands out from most of the shit on Wii.

I\'m playing KH atm and I\'m impressed by it\'s early PS2 visuals. Looks better than most Wii games lol.

( Edited 10.06.2008 22:39 by SuperLink )

Twitter | C3 Writer/Moderator | Backloggery

Darkflame 11.06.2008#25

\"That\'s called fairy lighting and it\'s piss easy\"

Well, I\'m a 3D Artist, not a shader coder.
In Max you get that with a self-illuminating falloff curve relative to angle.
Probably the same thing underneath.

\"I\'m playing KH atm and I\'m impressed by it\'s early PS2 visuals. Looks better than most Wii games lol.\"

Good style and artwork account for a lot.

I see chipsets as like a pallete for the artists and coders.
You can create wonderious things with small pallets, and bigger pallet\'s don\'t necessary give better results, its only that you get more options.
Thats why I think games like Okami,WindWaker and the first Beyond Good and Evil will look better in years to come then, say, Gears of War, or the new BG&E.

For an example for processing power used for nice artwork, Id point to the 360; new PoP game, or Banjo3. (which looks really great, imo)

( Edited 11.06.2008 10:14 by Darkflame )

http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+.

or sign in with...

Call of Duty 5 Wii - Close to 360/PS3 Versions

Call of Duty: World at War (Wii)

Comment on this article

Comments

Subscribe to this topic