Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.

Originally posted by Peach
FFS, would you realize that not everyone plays games for shiny graphics. They're one of the least important things in a game.

Actually, I wasn't hugely impressed by SCIV's graphics. They weren't really anything special - in particular, I noticed a LOT of clipping issues which annoyed the hell out of me. Considering the environments and how many things are on the screen in TFU, they're pretty damn awesome.

Starkiller's face looked weird in some of the closeups in TFU, though.

What's "clipping"?..

And the graphics weren't anything special? SC4's the best looking fighting game (and best looking game) in video game history, imo.

SC4's character models are the most realistically looking computer images of (playable, lol) human beings, that i've ever seen in my life, in video games. (including fmv's). -fmv's may have a seeming advantage because they're more dramatic and the movements are emphasized more cause due to theatrical reasons- But i'd say that's pretty special. But i'm not surprise cause they've always set the bar in that dept. specifically.

And the environments in SC4 are breathtaking. "TFU"'s environments are good but but cannot touch the level of detail in SC4, i'm sorry. "TFU" looks like a PS2.5 video game graphically while SC4's graphics look too advanced for the 360..

Starkiller's face looks real in all of the closeups in SC4.

Originally posted by S_D_J
I have both, and they are identical... though I only played through the first two levels on the Wii... haven't got much time to play, I'm currently playing the Kasshyyk level with Starkiller (PS2 Version)

The wii version has better lighting and reflectin textures than the PS2, other than that they're identical... except for the duel mode on wii

The Temple level I thought was exclusive to the PS2, but I guess I'm wrong... though I think the fights with Darth Desolus and Darth Phobos are exclusives for the PS2 level

does the PS3/360 version have the Empirical as a level?, because the PS2 doesn't...

the wii version could have ended better, it has a lot of potential, the problem is that's clearly a PS2 port (given the short time they had to work with the Wii version) that takes absolutely no advantage of the Wii hardware... except for the Wiimote... it makes playing faster, easier and funner than any other, though there are some moves a bit too difficult to pull off (is much easier pressing buttons for those)

So is the PS2 version good enough to play or is this game best played on the nextgen consoles? .

Desolous and Phobos are both fought in the Temple in the Wii version. I think the PS2 version literally has nothing exclusive going for it.

FistOfThe North, "clipping" is when a game's collision detection is not too good, and some objects go through, or clip, others. A prime example is Mitsurugi's winning pose with his sword on his shoulder; the blade clips through his hair several times.

While it's necessary to clip through opponents to attack, clipping on a single character is generally the mark of lazy animators, or too much reliance on motion capture.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
What's "clipping"?..

And the graphics weren't anything special? SC4's the best looking fighting game (and best looking game) in video game history, imo.

SC4's character models are the most realistically looking computer images of (playable, lol) human beings, that i've ever seen in my life, in video games. (including fmv's). -fmv's may have a seeming advantage because they're more dramatic and the movements are emphasized more cause due to theatrical reasons- But i'd say that's pretty special. But i'm not surprise cause they've always set the bar in that dept. specifically.

And the environments in SC4 are breathtaking. "TFU"'s environments are good but but cannot touch the level of detail in SC4, i'm sorry. "TFU" looks like a PS2.5 video game graphically while SC4's graphics look too advanced for the 360..

Starkiller's face looks real in all of the closeups in SC4.

SC4's graphics should have been damn-near perfect, for all that there's two characters and absolutely nothing interact-able on the screen. I just personally did not feel they really did push the bar as much as you say they did. Especially with the clipping issues. That is, as GK says, just laziness.

And of course TFU's graphics were not quite as good. As I said - they had tons more things to deal with. Huge environments where nearly everything is interactive? That takes far more work and processing power. For that, I'd say that TFU's graphics, while slightly inferior (certainly not PS2.5 as you say, though), are actually more impressive. Especially when they're actually trying out new methods. Which, well, SC4 really wasn't.

I have not been impressed by the graphics in a video game since Final Fantasy X came out, for the record. 99% of the time when a game is touted as "the most realistic thing ever" I look at it and thinkg "...are you joking?"

Originally posted by Peach
SC4's graphics should have been damn-near perfect, for all that there's two characters and absolutely nothing interact-able on the screen. I just personally did not feel they really did push the bar as much as you say they did. Especially with the clipping issues. That is, as GK says, just laziness.

And of course TFU's graphics were not quite as good. As I said - they had tons more things to deal with. Huge environments where nearly everything is interactive? That takes far more work and processing power. For that, I'd say that TFU's graphics, while slightly inferior (certainly not PS2.5 as you say, though), are actually more impressive. Especially when they're actually trying out new methods. Which, well, SC4 really wasn't.

I have not been impressed by the graphics in a video game since Final Fantasy X came out, for the record. 99% of the time when a game is touted as "the most realistic thing ever" I look at it and thinkg "...are you joking?"

Absolutely nothing is interactable in SC4? Have you played the game before?, (no seriously..)

SC4’s environments are immensely interactive. And they haven’t pushed the bar graphically? Do you know of a better looking fighting game? That’s ever come out, ever? That matches SC4 visually? If not then they’ve set the bar. (again)

I've spent about 30 hours playing SCIV. Half of it online with GK.

And what exactly can you interact with in the game? Can't do anything with the environments, which are completely static. Nothing more than throw your opponent off of a ledge, which...doesn't really count. Breaking someone's armor doesn't count as interactivity, either.

And better looking fighting game? I don't play fighting games. This is the only fighting game other than Tekken 3 that I've played for longer that 20 minutes. They're boring.

And as I say. Making a game look pretty where you have nothing more than two characters and static environments that you cannot interact with at all is not setting the bar.

Indeed; while the stages in SCIV have some crushing decals (say, when slamming an opponent into the ground), much of every single level in TFU has both DMM and Havok running in the background with tagged objects that can be thrown, crushed, bent, shattered, or knocked aside at any moment.

I expectd more DMM usage in FU.

Originally posted by Peach
I've spent about 30 hours playing SCIV. Half of it online with GK.

And what exactly can you interact with in the game? Can't do anything with the environments, which are completely static. Nothing more than throw your opponent off of a ledge, which...doesn't really count. Breaking someone's armor doesn't count as interactivity, either.

And better looking fighting game? I don't play fighting games. This is the only fighting game other than Tekken 3 that I've played for longer that 20 minutes. They're boring.

And as I say. Making a game look pretty where you have nothing more than two characters and static environments that you cannot interact with at all is not setting the bar.

Who said anything about ring outs or amour destruction counting as environmental interactivity? We’re talking about surroundings and the atmosphere here..

But some of the SC4 stages that I remember being interactive are:

- That “Pirates of the Caribbean stage” (it’s what I call it at least cause it’s in a sunny tropical atmosphere, with gliding seagulls, with pirate ships wrecked all over the place , and I’m assuming it’s Cervantes the pirates’ stage also.) There you’re on a broken ship deck and you can crash a foot into the wooden floor on the deck with splinters and shards flying all over the place. You can also destroy pieces of the (long) railing (on both sides) and fall over and/or through.

- Talim’s stage which is called “the distant marsh” (it’s the stage with the hippos and dodo birds) there you can crash into the wall and with leaves, dust and rubble falling on the attacked.

- Hall of the Warrior God, which is either Mitsurugi’s or Xianghua’s stage has about a dozen huge vases with weapons in them that, when crashed into, shatter, break, and cause more energy loss.

- In “Ice Coffin of the Sleeping Giant” you’re in this cave glacier with where you can, again, get smashed about a foot into the ice floor. Also the frozen walls deeply crack if you get smashed into them with the impact causing snow and sometime icicles to fall.

- And how’s this for innovation, in the “Phantom Pavilion” stage you’re in a fiery circus, inside a huge steel ornate cage dangling off, I think, just a couple of chains. 2 sides, opposite of each other, in the cage are retractable. Meaning slamming into them hard causes them to collapse. If both collapse the cage becomes a ramp that seesaws back and fourth, that causes you (both fighters) to remain balanced while still fighting each other. You could essentially slide off and ring out if you’re not cognizant of it.

And there are other interactive stages, as well.

And fighting games are boring “to you.” you mean. You wrote it as if it’s a matter of fact. The bottom-line is that SC4’s stages are very interactive whilst visually setting the bar high for fighting games and regular games in general, imo.

My take.

Sorry, but no. Things breaking when you hit them is not interacting with the stage. That's picking things up, being able to use them, being able to actively do something it. Not an effect from something else you've done. Those are all completely passive things. You factually cannot interact with the environment in SCIV.

And I'm pretty sure that it was obvious that it's my opinion that fighting games are boring.

Originally posted by Nactous
What!! Rogue Leader is one of the best looking games on the GameCube

Your point being?

The whole point of what IGN said isn't that Rogue Leader looked bad, it was that TFU looked bad now in not even being able to match RL. If it can be done seven years ago as a launch title on the PREVIOUS system, it should be easily bettered two years into the lifespan of the newer system!

Yes, Rogue Leader looked good for its time. But that's the whole point! Just being on the Wii cannot excuse TFU's poor graphics if they were already being bettered seven years ago.

Wii can make games with graphics much better than a PS2 or Gamecube, but most developers dont see a point. If they can make a PS2 game and just add Wii controls that people will still buy, which they do, why put the effort to make the game look better? Nice graphics can be done on Wii, Mario Galaxy showed that.

Since when did the graphics not matter any more? They're awesome! Sony and Microsoft didn't just work their fingers to the bone on their key boards just to hear your negative replies to the graphics they made. Graphics do matter!

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Since when did the graphics not matter any more? They're awesome! Sony and Microsoft didn't just work their fingers to the bone on their key boards just to hear your negative replies to the graphics they made. Graphics do matter!

I kinda admit that the Wii would be fun but can any of you imagine if graphics like the ones on the PS3 and 360 didn't exist? MGS4 and Halo 3 would've sucked if it wasn't for graphics.

If graphics like the ones on the PS3 or 360 didn't exist, well...the games I like would still be fun and I would still enjoy playing them.

I mean, really, I still spend more time playing my DS than my 360. It's a question of what is more enjoyable, not what is shinier. Putting gold-colored paint over junk doesn't stop it from being junk.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Graphics do indeed matter. I'll be the first to agree to that, as a game design student.

Originally posted by Kazenji
So is the PS2 version good enough to play or is this game best played on the nextgen consoles? .

if you have a Wii, then no, The Wii version it's the better of the two, it just makes playing fun...

If you don't have a Wii, but a PS2 and PS360, then you could give it try, rent it if you don't want to buy it, the story it's the same, but the levels are totally different than the current gen system... except the Wii, of course.

I bought both for two reasons: the PS2 version arrived before any other (down here where I live), and I just couldn't wait to play it, I bought the Wii version a week later...
and I love Star Wars and I'd probably buy anything with it's logo on it... yeah, it's sad but true.

Funny thing about the graphics... the Wii version it's put down mostly because it's a PS2 port with no DRM or Euphoria... but it's the most fun to play with, really

heck, I'm playing the PS2 version and I don't care about the bad graphics and multiple clipping issues, cuz I'm just simply having so much fun playing it... and then there's the Wii version with It's much more fun to play with.... I can get enough of force pummeling people with wiimote... seriously

i'm just mad that i cant force choke on the 360 one with Starkiller, but the wii one you can right from the start

You can't use force choke on the PS3/360?

weird...