Why do people think the graphics in MH3 are so good?

Seriously?

I played the game the other day and the textures are very blurry and low res and the game loads new scenes constantly.

The animations are good but they use the same death animations for the monsters over and over.

There's no collision with the monsters body when they are on the ground so the player runs right through them.

The shadows are rubbish and we seriously had the same kind of shadows on Link in Zelda 64. I think we are a little beyond that now no?

The humanoid character models look as though they belong on a PS1 and I'm really not exaggerating too much here.

The really blurry and low res textures however are the worst thing.

This game is really not that good looking and I have no idea why people go on about the games graphics so much.

Are Wii owners really that starved of good looking games?

MP3, SMG/SMG2, SSBB, The Conduit etc all look much better and much cleaner. Even Twighlight Princess looks better which is funny considering what Nintendo said about MH3 in relation to the new Zelda's graphics and having to compete with that game etc.

Note: I only own a Wii so I'm not an Xbox 360 or PS3 fanboy. I'm just calling it as it is.

It's on par with Starfox Adventures at least

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq_b2HG99C8&feature=related

It's on par with Starfox Adventures at least.

Ganados0

Eh!

Did you just go off on a complete tangent there or am I missing something?

Edit: Now that I look at the video I see where you are going with this.

I actually think SFA is a much better looking game overall.

Are we playing the same game?

Find me footage from The Conduit that looks as good at that.

Are we playing the same game?

Find me footage from The Conduit that looks as good at that.

GabuEx

The thing is that as blurry as the game looks in those shots it actually looks like that in real life.

It is a blurry game and imo that is not a nice thing.

You add in the loading, bad collision, simple shadows, repeating animation, etc, and it's not really an impressive game. Also, all the villiage locations look really bad with their fixed angles and very blurry pre-rendered look from the PS era imo.

Some decent artwork and monsters designs, along with mostly nice animation, can't make up for all the other issues enough imo to be able to say this is a great looking game, and most people are saying just that.

It's and average looking Wii game with some good art direction and it's a terrible looking game with some good art direction outside of Wii.

The Conduit may not have as good art direction but technically it's a much cleaner, sharper looking game, and it has better shadows and less loading etc too.

The thing is that as blurry as the game looks in those shots it actually looks like that in real life.

It is a blurry game and imo that is not a nice thing.

You add in the loading, bad collision, simple shadows, repeating animation, etc, and it's not really an impressive game. Also, all the villiage locations look really bad with their fixed angles and very blurry pre-rendered look from the PS era imo.

Some decent artwork and monsters designs, along with mostly nice animation, can't make up for all the other issues enough imo to be able to say this is a great looking game, and most people are saying just that.

It's and average looking Wii game with some good art direction and it's a terrible looking game with some good art direction outside of Wii.

The Conduit may not have as good art direction but technically it's a much cleaner, sharper looking game, and it has better shadows and less loading etc too.

amaneuvering

Loading I will grant you, but the rest really seems to be quibbles over rather minor things. Especially the collision detection - given that it functions properly when the animal is alive, that's rather obviously a conscious design decision to make gameplay more streamlined, not an oversight. Shadows - yeah, sure, the shadow projection on the ground could be better. But blurry? I can't agree with that at all. And when you put that against everything the game does right, I can't exactly agree with the assessment that the former outweighs the latter.

I own an Xbox 360, and I've played all of the games on it whose graphics have been hailed as amazing. And my first reaction upon playing Monster Hunter Tri was still, "Damn, this game is pretty as hell." I wouldn't even add the qualifier "for the Wii" when saying that the game looks great.

I'd say it's a good-looking game, but not great-looking, and certainly not the best.

It certainly does not look as good as in the screenshots. When I saw screenshots of this game, I was like 'wow!', and when I played it, it was like 'ok...'. Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 are still the best-looking Wii games for me.

It definitely does not look as good as some people claim. It's an ok looking game, nothing special really. Many Wii games looks better.

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]

The thing is that as blurry as the game looks in those shots it actually looks like that in real life.

It is a blurry game and imo that is not a nice thing.

You add in the loading, bad collision, simple shadows, repeating animation, etc, and it's not really an impressive game. Also, all the villiage locations look really bad with their fixed angles and very blurry pre-rendered look from the PS era imo.

Some decent artwork and monsters designs, along with mostly nice animation, can't make up for all the other issues enough imo to be able to say this is a great looking game, and most people are saying just that.

It's and average looking Wii game with some good art direction and it's a terrible looking game with some good art direction outside of Wii.

The Conduit may not have as good art direction but technically it's a much cleaner, sharper looking game, and it has better shadows and less loading etc too.

GabuEx

Loading I will grant you, but the rest really seems to be quibbles over rather minor things. Especially the collision detection - given that it functions properly when the animal is alive, that's rather obviously a conscious design decision to make gameplay more streamlined, not an oversight. Shadows - yeah, sure, the shadow projection on the ground could be better. But blurry? I can't agree with that at all. And when you put that against everything the game does right, I can't exactly agree with the assessment that the former outweighs the latter.

I own an Xbox 360, and I've played all of the games on it whose graphics have been hailed as amazing. And my first reaction upon playing Monster Hunter Tri was still, "Damn, this game is pretty as hell." I wouldn't even add the qualifier "for the Wii" when saying that the game looks great.

The blurry graphics are the most obvious issue with the game imo.

I really don't get how some people don't think these graphics are blurry.

I have other Wii games that are much better looking, like SMG2 and MP3 for example, and the difference in the sharpness of the textures on those games and the cleanness of the graphics in general is night and day.

The whole game looks like it's running in a slightly lower than SD res or maybe it has a sotten/blur filter or something.

MH3 is a very blurry game all things considered.

This in one Wii game where the screenshots actually look better than the game does in real life imo.

Cos they are? For the Wii anyway.locopatho

That's the thing though.

Even for the Wii they are more blurry that most games and have a lot of little issues that don't make them that special imo.

The art direction and animation are really good for the most part though, I must admit, so I can see how some people would like the general look of the game.

Still, the blurriness of everything is a major downer for me personally.

I agree with you... somewhat. The blurriness really stands out to me, too, and everything just kinda looks bland. The areas vary in terms of art design, but for the most part, I think it's pretty unimaginative. They go for realistic even though it's an entirely unrealistic premise based in fantasy. I think they could've done some really cool stuff that makes you forget about the blurriness, but they didn't.

The loading isn't an issue because it's part of the gameplay. They probably could've hidden the loading if they wanted to make it all streamlined, but having different areas is a major part of the gameplay, so it makes sense to do it the way they did.

It doesn't look as bad as The Conduit, but nothing about the graphics blows me away or anything.

If you think the game looks blurry maybe you need glasses.

It's a beautiful looking game. The monsters looks great, most of the weapons look really good and a lot of the different armor setslook cool,and the enviroments are absolutely gorgeous.The Volcano looks especially great, it reminds me of Mount Doom from Lord of the Rings.

is not blurry to me and i think it looks fantatic. Also the art direction is superb, the monster design is top notch(art design) and the scenery is often breathtaking.The textures are one of the higuest in the system (like 3x times more elaborated than Prime 3) it also uses a decent level of bumb mapping on creatures and the animations are smoth, the physics engine is also efficient and and it employs monsters than get up to the size of a 8 story building,all well animated, while keeping monsters around it well animated and all the hunters standing on it as well.

i don't get the blury thing either. sounds to me like you are nit picking a bit here, also as GabuEx the collision issue is only on dead monsters, if they are alive you cannot walk through them. the game looks great. sometimes i'll still get caught up looking out over the valley. teknic1200

i have been playing Madworld and Dead space: Extraction recently. because madworld uses a special kind of shading that removes a lot of the higher effects, its simple graphics are really nice and great to look at. this is an art style reason. Dead Space also looks fantastic. sure its not a crisp as doom 3 from teh PC era, but i prefer its engine fo the highly detailed characters. just deal with the fact that the wii aint that grunty compared to the competition, but if u seriiously think it looks worse then the ps1 in some respects, i suggest u hoook up ur ps1 to ur HDTV and prepare to be shocked by its blurry blocky maddness

it also uses a decent level of bumb mapping on creatures and the animations are smoth, the physics engine is also efficientintro94

Its like the ones who nitpick on Mh3 are always the one who doesnt fully own the game.intro94

im not one to care for graphics cause i play multiple systems, but i think the MH3 graphics are given a little too much credit, they dont look as good as people sayand other games on the wii already beat them. like i said, i still play systems like the NES so i dont care for graphics quality.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Are we playing the same game?

*pics*

Find me footage from The Conduit that looks as good at that.

amaneuvering

The thing is that as blurry as the game looks in those shots it actually looks like that in real life.

It is a blurry game and imo that is not a nice thing.

You add in the loading, bad collision, simple shadows, repeating animation, etc, and it's not really an impressive game. Also, all the villiage locations look really bad with their fixed angles and very blurry pre-rendered look from the PS era imo.

Some decent artwork and monsters designs, along with mostly nice animation, can't make up for all the other issues enough imo to be able to say this is a great looking game, and most people are saying just that.

It's and average looking Wii game with some good art direction and it's a terrible looking game with some good art direction outside of Wii.

The Conduit may not have as good art direction but technically it's a much cleaner, sharper looking game, and it has better shadows and less loading etc too.

i know what youre talking about when you look at the character model and everything like little details on the main character, its not assharpas the details on mario or metroid(well being that thats an FPS) but i think saying that its "and average looking Wii game with some good art direction" is FAR from even being a bit of a stretch in my opinion....graphics wise i think the game still looks damn good in my opinion..

besides we ALL know nintendo puts out the most quality games on the wii, so your comparisons go without saying...

[QUOTE="intro94"]it also uses a decent level of bumb mapping on creatures and the animations are smoth, the physics engine is also efficientJordanElek

Its like the ones who nitpick on Mh3 are always the one who doesnt fully own the game.intro94

Question is, how would you make Mh3 look better and , do you think it would still run on the wii?Only devs know. i said that the engine , physics , was efficient, Not complex.Complex is no good. The ragdolls physics in Mass effect 2 are sure complex, but terrible and look laughable. On the other hand, Mh3 has simpler but more effective physics and canned animations that get the job done in a better looking way.Also i did notice bump on the first time against Uragan.intro94

They replaced physics with animations, which I don't have a problem with, but it doesn't really make me think the game is technically better because of it. I think it was a smart choice to avoid taxing the Wii, but that just means it's technically not very impressive. We can blame that on the Wii pretty easily, but it doesn't change what it is.

The blurriness and general lack of bright colors are what make the game look pretty bland, plus the level design isn't very imaginative, so those are the areas I'd focus on to make the game look better. Blurriness can be handled in the same way MP3 does, with texture resolution changing depending on the camera's distance from it. The color palette would be easy to brighten up, especially by getting more variety. And the level design could have more elements like the one area with sunken ruins in the flooded forest. It's a fantasy world, so it'd be nice to have more imaginative elements rather than almost entirely all realistic stuff.

Like I said, the game doesn't look bad, but it's not jaw-dropping or amazing at all.

My game isn't blurry at all. You can't walk through a monster if it's alive.

[QUOTE="intro94"]Question is, how would you make Mh3 look better and , do you think it would still run on the wii?Only devs know. i said that the engine , physics , was efficient, Not complex.Complex is no good. The ragdolls physics in Mass effect 2 are sure complex, but terrible and look laughable. On the other hand, Mh3 has simpler but more effective physics and canned animations that get the job done in a better looking way.Also i did notice bump on the first time against Uragan.JordanElek

They replaced physics with animations, which I don't have a problem with, but it doesn't really make me think the game is technically better because of it. I think it was a smart choice to avoid taxing the Wii, but that just means it's technically not very impressive. We can blame that on the Wii pretty easily, but it doesn't change what it is.

The blurriness and general lack of bright colors are what make the game look pretty bland, plus the level design isn't very imaginative, so those are the areas I'd focus on to make the game look better. Blurriness can be handled in the same way MP3 does, with texture resolution changing depending on the camera's distance from it. The color palette would be easy to brighten up, especially by getting more variety. And the level design could have more elements like the one area with sunken ruins in the flooded forest. It's a fantasy world, so it'd be nice to have more imaginative elements rather than almost entirely all realistic stuff.

Like I said, the game doesn't look bad, but it's not jaw-dropping or amazing at all.

Well there is no blurriness at all, I don't get where you guys are coming from.

Lack of bright colors? If you like monsters to be lots of multiple bright colors go play Pokemon. It's not supposed to be all sunshine and rainbows, it'd take away from the seriousness of the epic battles.

Level design not imaginitive? There's lots of different ways a fantasy world can look, imo the areas in the game look a lot like stuff from Lord of the Rings, and that's a great fantasy world.

I think your descriptions of Monster Hunter Tri describe World of Warcraft a lot better. A very uninspired, over ratedand unimaginitive game.

Lack of bright colors? If you like monsters to be lots of multiple bright colors go play Pokemon. It's not supposed to be all sunshine and rainbows, it'd take away from the seriousness of the epic battles.J_Ford

Level design not imaginitive? There's lots of different ways a fantasy world can look, imo the areas in the game look a lot like stuff from Lord of the Rings, and that's a great fantasy world.J_Ford

Seriously?

I played the game the other day and the textures are very blurry and low res and the game loads new scenes constantly.

The animations are good but they use the same death animations for the monsters over and over.

There's no collision with the monsters body when they are on the ground so the player runs right through them.

The shadows are rubbish and we seriously had the same kind of shadows on Link in Zelda 64. I think we are a little beyond that now no?

The humanoid character models look as though they belong on a PS1 and I'm really not exaggerating too much here.

The really blurry and low res textures however are the worst thing.

This game is really not that good looking and I have no idea why people go on about the games graphics so much.

Are Wii owners really that starved of good looking games?

MP3, SMG/SMG2, SSBB, The Conduit etc all look much better and much cleaner. Even Twighlight Princess looks better which is funny considering what Nintendo said about MH3 in relation to the new Zelda's graphics and having to compete with that game etc.

Note: I only own a Wii so I'm not an Xbox 360 or PS3 fanboy. I'm just calling it as it is.

amaneuvering

Try to describe an area to someone without using the number. In a more imaginative world, that would be a piece of cake. As it is, it's mainly just rocks and cliffs and trees. What about some old statues in the jungle or more ruins, some cool cliff faces and other things that really set the areas apart? A LOT could be done there to make the MH world unique.

JordanElek

actually, there are some ruins spread on the forest and the island. in fact, if you go to area 2 and look south, you'll notice a huge pyramid :P

sure designs aren't unique, but hey, you're in the wild, hunting the wild, not on a tourist spot.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

Try to describe an area to someone without using the number. In a more imaginative world, that would be a piece of cake. As it is, it's mainly just rocks and cliffs and trees. What about some old statues in the jungle or more ruins, some cool cliff faces and other things that really set the areas apart? A LOT could be done there to make the MH world unique.

BrunoBRS

actually, there are some ruins spread on the forest and the island. in fact, if you go to area 2 and look south, you'll notice a huge pyramid :P

sure designs aren't unique, but hey, you're in the wild, hunting the wild, not on a tourist spot.

Here's an example of imaginative level design - Deadly Creatures. If you've played it, you know that they made every area memorable and unique, even though it wasn't necessary (you're just an arachnid wandering around killing other bugs). I can clearly remember many areas in that game even though I only played through each level twice and it was months ago. I can only remember the MH areas because you're forced to go to each one again and again and again.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that the decent-but-nothing-special level design is game-breaking or anything, just that it could be better and should be taken into account when talking about how good the game looks. The design doesn't meet its potential.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

Try to describe an area to someone without using the number. In a more imaginative world, that would be a piece of cake. As it is, it's mainly just rocks and cliffs and trees. What about some old statues in the jungle or more ruins, some cool cliff faces and other things that really set the areas apart? A LOT could be done there to make the MH world unique.

JordanElek

actually, there are some ruins spread on the forest and the island. in fact, if you go to area 2 and look south, you'll notice a huge pyramid :P

sure designs aren't unique, but hey, you're in the wild, hunting the wild, not on a tourist spot.

Here's an example of imaginative level design - Deadly Creatures. If you've played it, you know that they made every area memorable and unique, even though it wasn't necessary (you're just an arachnid wandering around killing other bugs). I can clearly remember many areas in that game even though I only played through each level twice and it was months ago. I can only remember the MH areas because you're forced to go to each one again and again and again.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that the decent-but-nothing-special level design is game-breaking or anything, just that it could be better and should be taken into account when talking about how good the game looks. The design doesn't meet its potential.

i honestly think the art direction on the game is great. maybe there aren't unique traces on everything you see, but it's still astonishing to, for example, look at the night sky. first time i did it i spent 10 minutes roaming with the camera pointing at it.BrunoBRS

The blurriness is caused by the game running at alower resolution than standard Wii games, and also the lack of anti-aliasing of any sort. Also lower the bloom effect to mild. You will see a significant difference in the quality, and the lack of "blur". I think they overused the bloom effect and that is why it looks blurry.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]i honestly think the art direction on the game is great. maybe there aren't unique traces on everything you see, but it's still astonishing to, for example, look at the night sky. first time i did it i spent 10 minutes roaming with the camera pointing at it.JordanElek

The entire game is based on animations, not real-time physics. The animations are good, but they're all preset.

JordanElek

Well that's not entirely true. When a huge monster smashes your ass and you go flying like a ragdoll, that is definitely not just a preset animation.

Here's an example of imaginative level design - Deadly Creatures. If you've played it, you know that they made every area memorable and unique, even though it wasn't necessary (you're just an arachnid wandering around killing other bugs). I can clearly remember many areas in that game even though I only played through each level twice and it was months ago. I can only remember the MH areas because you're forced to go to each one again and again and again.

JordanElek

Eh, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. You asked if someone could describe an area in MH3 without using the number, which I will grant you, but if someone asked me to do the same with a Deadly Creatures level, I'm not sure I could do that either, at least not in general. The levels are pretty much... well, where a spider or scorpion would go. It had imaginative level design, in terms of how you interact with the levels, but in terms of the actual sights you see, I don't think I'd agree that they were more interesting or memorable than MH3.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

Here's an example of imaginative level design - Deadly Creatures. If you've played it, you know that they made every area memorable and unique, even though it wasn't necessary (you're just an arachnid wandering around killing other bugs). I can clearly remember many areas in that game even though I only played through each level twice and it was months ago. I can only remember the MH areas because you're forced to go to each one again and again and again.

GabuEx

Eh, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. You asked if someone could describe an area in MH3 without using the number, which I will grant you, but if someone asked me to do the same with a Deadly Creatures level, I'm not sure I could do that either, at least not in general. The levels are pretty much... well, where a spider or scorpion would go. It had imaginative level design, in terms of how you interact with the levels, but in terms of the actual sights you see, I don't think I'd agree that they were more interesting or memorable than MH3.

As it is, most of them are boring and nondescript.

How about the place with the bike and cacti, the buried coffin, the interior of an old truck, a dollhouse, the gas station (inside and out).... Those are just off the top of my head. In MH3, I can think of the underwater ruins, the nest-ish area that you get to through an underwater tunnel, the little cat village, the place with the giant gnarly tree, and.... that's about it. With this kind of game, it seems like they had to invest a lot of time into designing each area specifically anyway, and since they're all pretty much independent of each other, they could've all been VERY creative.

As it is, most of them are boring and nondescript.

JordanElek

How about the place with the bike and cacti, the buried coffin, the interior of an old truck, a dollhouse, the gas station (inside and out).... Those are just off the top of my head. In MH3, I can think of the underwater ruins, the nest-ish area that you get to through an underwater tunnel, the little cat village, the place with the giant gnarly tree, and.... that's about it. With this kind of game, it seems like they had to invest a lot of time into designing each area specifically anyway, and since they're all pretty much independent of each other, they could've all been VERY creative.

As it is, most of them are boring and nondescript.

JordanElek

Well, OK, I suppose there was the old truck (although it couldn't have been too memorable given that I had forgotten all about it :P), but really, you seem to have named about the same number of memorable spots in Deadly Creatures as in Monster Hunter 3. And a very good chunk of Deadly Creatures was, well, desert. Nothing very interesting about that.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

How about the place with the bike and cacti, the buried coffin, the interior of an old truck, a dollhouse, the gas station (inside and out).... Those are just off the top of my head. In MH3, I can think of the underwater ruins, the nest-ish area that you get to through an underwater tunnel, the little cat village, the place with the giant gnarly tree, and.... that's about it. With this kind of game, it seems like they had to invest a lot of time into designing each area specifically anyway, and since they're all pretty much independent of each other, they could've all been VERY creative.

As it is, most of them are boring and nondescript.

GabuEx

Well, OK, I suppose there was the old truck (although it couldn't have been too memorable given that I had forgotten all about it :P), but really, you seem to have named about the same number of memorable spots in Deadly Creatures as in Monster Hunter 3. And a very good chunk of Deadly Creatures was, well, desert. Nothing very interesting about that.

Well anyway, it's a matter of preference, and I would've preferred more imaginative designs in MH. They easily could've done it, so it's disappointing that they didn't. I've stopped in the middle of games to admire the beauty of their environments before, but not one area in MH has made me do that. I think there's still at least one more area that I haven't seen yet, but the ones so far have been pretty boring.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me... but I replied to this thread because I kind of agree with the TC that I think MH gets more praise from people for how it looks than I'd give it.

Nintendo thinks MH3 looks good too & strive to better it -> new Zelda...so that's good enough for me. I don't think MH3 graphics are so good...I know they are so good, for the type of graphics they're aiming it's very good. If you don't like it..then maybe you don't like the type of graphics..abit blurry in some parts BUT OVERALL & the main thing is the MONSTERS looks AWESOME.

I dont know what cables you use and what TV you use, but composite cables plus HD tv yeilds results much better than what you seem to experience

Because they are.