From the technical aspect, it would make even less sense, as "upscaling" a game is the most pointless and time/cost consuming thing ever. You can downscale a game, but making it better, with a lot more polygons, new shaders (different shaders in this case, as 3DS is very different), better textures, improved lighting (shadow levels would have to be done in a different way on the 3DS since it can't handle those shadows) is like making a second game. Nintendo would have to be really incompetent to do a thing like that.
New Super Mario Bros U, Ocarina of Time 3DS and Windwaker HD say hello!
All of these games started their life as remakes (WWHD only at places). Both NSMBU and OoT3D have new models, textures and other elements remade from the ground up. Pikmin 3 started development on Wii and look how much time it took Nintendo to switch systems and update the game.
Unless Nintendo says that it started on the 3DS, there is absolutely nothing rational behind that statement.
Thoughts on the recent rumor that Nintendo is upscaling Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon and releasing it on the Wii-U?
Did you just argue against logical reasoning with an unfounded rumour?
Can someone do a GIF for me?
Logical reasoning?? He stated its much easier/cheaper to create a game from the ground up than to "upscale" a game using pre-existing elements which have already been designed and created. Logic went out the window at that point. If that were true, how come Nintendo re-made the Windwaker to "test out what the Wii-U could do" before releasing an original Zelda game? And how come it was so quickly finished/released when a new Zelda game isn't expected until at least 2015? If his "logic" is correct, shouldn't the new Zelda game be released first because more effort and money would be needed to "upscale" an older, pre-existing game?
If Luigi's Mansion is released on Wii-U (I don't expect it to be), I just wanted a hypothetical answer on what his stance would be. No GIF necessary.
Logical reasoning?? He stated its much easier/cheaper to create a game from the ground up than to "upscale" a game using pre-existing elements which have already been designed and created. Logic went out the window at that point. If that were true, how come Nintendo re-made the Windwaker to "test out what the Wii-U could do" before releasing an original Zelda game? And how come it was so quickly finished/released when a new Zelda game isn't expected until at least 2015? If his "logic" is correct, shouldn't the new Zelda game be released first because more effort and money would be needed to "upscale" an older, pre-existing game?
I think what was meant was that if you make a port you spend more than the amount of time to make a game in total across both the original and the port. At the end of that process you get two games. If you system jump you spend the same amount of time as a port but you only get one game.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
I think what actually happened is that they made the assumption that it just being Mario was enough to generate hype at E3. Not realising that everyone was expecting the next big Mario title. What we got at the Nintendo Direct was partially a correction of that and partially what they would have planned all along. Get the hype out early, show finer details as you get closer. They did the same thing with all of their games at E3, they just underestimated what people's expectations were.
If its a choice between conspiracy and stuff-up/miscalculation always go for the latter.
My thoughts as well.
They also really emphasized the multiplayer trying to make it a more appealing game for the casual crowd.
Logical reasoning?? He stated its much easier/cheaper to create a game from the ground up than to "upscale" a game using pre-existing elements which have already been designed and created. Logic went out the window at that point. If that were true, how come Nintendo re-made the Windwaker to "test out what the Wii-U could do" before releasing an original Zelda game? And how come it was so quickly finished/released when a new Zelda game isn't expected until at least 2015? If his "logic" is correct, shouldn't the new Zelda game be released first because more effort and money would be needed to "upscale" an older, pre-existing game?
I think what was meant was that if you make a port you spend more than the amount of time to make a game in total across both the original and the port. At the end of that process you get two games. If you system jump you spend the same amount of time as a port but you only get one game.
I don't think it was meant like that at all, and neither did he. He clearly stated its easier to create a brand new game or "downscale" a game made for a more powerful system to a weaker one, rather than "upscaling" an older game to a newer, more powerful console.
Here are some excerpts from a recent interview with the guy in charge of working on the Windwaker HD release, Eiji Aonuma, and his thoughts on how easy it was to "upscale" a video game....
Aonuma: Yes. I thought it would be a waste to for this to simply be a test of the hardware. After that, I was told by staff, that this would not take too much time to develop. It takes a long time to develop a brand new game, so I thought it would be a shame to not have a Zelda game on the Wii U for a while. So I felt like it would be best to deliver something that can be done quickly and began work on the HD version
Aonuma: Basically, you don't have to do much to the models. What you have to do is improve the accuracy of the models. As you upscale the models and smooth them out, at that time hand-drawn animation's atmosphere felt slippery. So the models remain as they were, textures are upscaled and using a system that allows you have shading allows for models to casts shadows. In the past, we had to do the same, we had to brush up the art. As a result, even the original had an HD feel to it.
So who should I trust? A guy on a message board telling us that "upscaling" a game is a pointless concept as its too expensive and time consuming? Or a guy who works at Nintendo, who oversaw the "upscaling" of a game, telling us that it was relatively easy, cheap, and didn't take much time?? I wonder....
Basically this thread:
"I didn't like the trailer of a game all that much. It can't be because I just didn't find it appealing! It must be on purpose as part of a conspiracy!"
In context to 3D World, the point was sound. If the game was originally developed for 3DS, and then shifted to Wii U, that would be more difficult and more expensive than building it from the ground-up. Which is why it probably wasn't.
I don't think Nintendo would show a bad trailer to help promote a Sonic game.
Here's what I think happened:
1. Nintendo released a very brief glimpse of a game with a demo for e3. They didn't want to give away all their new gameplay ideas 6 months before release. (you could add a conspiracy theory that Nintendo didn't want Sonic Team to steal their ideas)
2. Loads of idiotic fanboys and trolls cried about how it was just an HD upscale of the last 3DS Mario game. because it wasn't Galaxy 3 or an open world Mario game.
3. Nintendo, who are relying on this game to be a big xmas seller, released a much more showy trailer to shut up the idiots who have been reviewing this game despite having never played it.
4. The idiotic fanboys still moaned and tried to claim that a sequel to 'Mario 64/ Sunshine/Galaxy 2' would be less unoriginal than a brand new 3D Mario game.
I only posted this to get my avatar as the forum's thumbnail.
In context to 3D World, the point was sound. If the game was originally developed for 3DS, and then shifted to Wii U, that would be more difficult and more expensive than building it from the ground-up. Which is why it probably wasn't.
Thats what the poster came to say, I reckon
It doesn't necessarily mean that the game was 50-80% finished for the 3DS before it was shifted to the Wii-U. It's possible that it was developed for the 3DS at first with a couple months work done, before they decided to develop it for the Wii-U instead. Unless Nintendo states this was true, we won't know for sure, but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibly that this was the case.
The developers have gone on record saying that 3D land was the first Mario game where blocks featured prominently because they normally don't work well on 3D games but the stereoscopic 3D capabilities of the 3DS allowed them to work well. 3D world seems to feature blocks as prominently as 3D Land which may mean the game was initially designed with stereoscopic 3D in mind
I don't think it was meant like that at all, and neither did he. He clearly stated its easier to create a brand new game or "downscale" a game made for a more powerful system to a weaker one, rather than "upscaling" an older game to a newer, more powerful console.
Except that the poster didn't mention ports and actually dismissed them when you brought them up. Suggesting that something other than what was being talked about. If they had started making this game on the 3DS why did it end up on the Wii U? Seems like a lot of effort to go through especially given it has such a clear multi-player focus.
Seems much more likely that this game started on the Wii U with someone saying "I liked the feel of 3D Land, why don't we do a HD multiplayer one?". Right after they finished on 3D Land. Compare that to Pikmin 3 which started life on the Wii presumably, was moved to the 3DS and then the Wii U. How much time was wasted in that process? Why would they do that if they knew from the start what platform they were aiming for? They probably did spend almost twice the usual amount of time on Pikmin 3 because of the constant moving of platforms.
Forums
Topic: Did Nintendo make Mario 3D world look rubbish because...
Posts 21 to 40 of 55
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.