I have a feeling bowling is the only thing I'm ever going to use the Wii for.

Fahey, you are a genius. Too bad the in-game characters more closely resemble neanderthals.

I know the wii isn't about being a graphical powerhouse and all, but I have to agree. Those characters look *terrible*. It could be a really fun and great game, but the half-assed characters are going to shatter any sense of 'realistic' bowling.

Something looks really, really WRONG with the arms.

Fahey! Your still alive. Good. Good.
If I ever get a Wii, this is sounding pretty good. I hope they add a little more detail, maybe HD has spoiled me, but some of the screens look blandish.
I hope blandish means what I think it means...

Those are the most low-res textures I have seen in a very, very, long time. Just look at those jeans, horrible texturing. Also, I'm pretty sure the wii can do reflective surfaces, so why is there a shadow on the floor instead of a reflection?

And now I just noticed the arms, wow. They totally effed up on those models. In the first two underarm shots, you can see some pointy vertices shooting out from the guys armpit. Then that first side shot, totally looks like that guy dislocated his shoulder.

I am actually wondering how the PS3's bowling game (not in Home, the retail one coming out) is going to work. I know you can hold the PS3 remote in the middle, and it doesn't feel that uncomfortable, but it's still sorta awkward. And since there is no wrist strap like the Wii-mote, expect a LOT of broken TV's.

As far as this game goes, my sister gave my Mom and Dad her Wii while she studies abroad in England, and they both love to bowl, so I'll probably pick this up for my Dad's birthday. They have a nice big HD TV, so it will be like being at the lanes.

And the graphics won't matter, because they extent of gaming knowledge IS the Wii.

I'm confused... Did anyone here really expect a third party bowling game to push the Wii?

@Creamsodaslurpee: If that's true you lose your right to own a Wii... Have you not seen the Wii ownership requirements?
-Purchase of at least 2 of the following games: Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl.
-No whining about graphics (unless "third party" is a pivotal part of the sentence.
-Purchase of at least 8 Virtual Console games.
-Purchase of at least 3 Wii Remote/Nunchuck combinations (they don't care if you have no family).

As for this game, hopefully the game will have realistic gameplay. I'm sick of getting owned by relatives because they get lucky.

@PapaBear434:

Even still. Nobody is going to take a bowling game seriously where the arms pop out of their sockets.

Wii/Mii bowling was a bit different. For its simplicity, it looked clean. Clean is fun.

Buying this game this way it is currently is like a girl you'd pick up at around 2am in a dark alley thinking she'll be a great time, not realizing you're drunk and not thinking straight and upon getting home, realizing shes ugly as sin and not very much fun at all.

If you're going to do realism, give me curves and arms that dont look dislocated, or keep it simple.

@Komrade_Kayce: Or a long haired dude

@Gamemaster: Hey, that's not always a negative. :P

It's surprising that this is the only (known) bowling game coming out. This is such a no brainer.

But why are skimping on the characters models? There 's no reason they can't look 10x better than they do know.

I'll pick this up, but I will anxiously wait a for "Kingpin" game - with voice acting from Bill Murray and Woody Harrelson and good character models (a man can dream can't he)

@Gamemaster:

Ah, ye old 'it looked like a hot girl from behind!' excuse. You learn to mistrust your eyes quite a bit after it happens

...more than once

I notice that in the write up Fahey doesn't mention how turd-ugly the graphics are... Hmm... It worked for Metroid, maybe the game looks better in motion...

*looks at screens again*

but how?

I think I had this game for the PC like 15 years ago, when it was called Virtual Bowling 3D or something. Am I the only one that cringed after seeing that first screenshot? It's like they made a bowling game with the characters from Out of This World.

On the other hand, if the game will show my bowler knockin' gutterballs granny-style, I can look past the graphics.

@Komrade_Kayce:

Well, the arms are long as hell, but it would seem to me that the disjointed arms are simply caused by a low polygon count.

It's the Wii. What can you do, eh?

it bothers me that someone would find this entertaining... Consumers are gullible...

@insert_gently:

It's the Wii. What can you do, eh?

Oh, no he didn't...

Honestly, though, it has been discussed to death how the Wii is marketing the casual gamer. This game is not exactly an exception to that rule. The average casual person like my parents are not going to notice long monkey arms or low polygon counts and dislocated shoulders. They are just going to throw the ball down the ally and cheer when they get a strike.

And you know what, they will be AMAZED by the graphics while doing so, too, because until the Wii their most recent gaming venture was "Duck Hunt."

It's the nature of Nintendo's business plan. Despite Reggie's insistence to the contrary, I wouldn't expect to much more in the way of supporting their core gamers. You will still get the usual suspects of Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, but as far as expecting new first or third party IP's supporting the more discerning tastes of a more involved player... Well, I hope you like slumming it when it comes to character models and texture graphics.

@PapaBear434:

But they could have ported a GC game like everyone says they do and come out with a better result than this.

@insert_gently:

I find Wii bowling to be HIGHLY entertaining, thank you very much. Even just the Wii sports one. For all its simplicity, its fun and the wii remote works well to simulate the feel of bowlin'.

@Komrade_Kayce:

Yes, but when marketing to the casual crowd, they don't NEED to. They are fresh, practically game virgins. They don't have much of a basis of comparison.

And as long as the machine keeps printing money off this business plan, there really isn't any logical reason for them to change it up. Hell, I wouldn't if I knew it would probably sell the same either way.

These screenshots look like they came from one of those crappy commercials about online schools of game design! All it needs are two chubby losers sitting on a couch going "wow, i cant believe we get paid to do this!"

It will still be fun i think, maybe.

Those graphics look like a PS2 launch game.

Hell, maybe worse.

@Belain: Except these guys forgot to tighten up the graphics on levels 3, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7...

@PapaBear434: Well said regarding the casuals.

I have a bit of a different take, even though this game isn't a minigame compilation but a more advanced version of a game included in a minigame compilation.

The Wii is getting inundated with minigame titles and Nintendo needs to tread lightly milking the minigame cash cow because after a while even the casuals WILL get tired of playing minigames. Mario Party is a great example. Sales of MP peaked on the Gamecube and each version since 6 (I think) have sold less overall copies than the last. Why? Because it just becomes the same old same old.

Nintendo needs to really be pushing third parties to consider diversifying genres for the Wii. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to make hardcore titles. Platformers, for example, would be awesome on the Wii.

What it boils down to, in the end, is that if the consumers go to the game store in a couple years and see nothing but Mario-Metroid-Zelda-SSBB, the usual EA Sports suspects, and then a whole wall of minigame compilation games, they will eventually get tired of it.

Just to clarify, I have no problems with the marketing and profitability of minigames. The Wii has proven those games have a solid place in gaming. But they can't expect peoples' interest to remain as high in a year, or two years, if minigames (or, in this case, more advanced renditions of something from an existing minigame) end up dominating the console.

I wonder how many Wii owners will see this title and think, "Hmm. Bowling. Been there, done that, think I'll pass on this one."

My dad is going to love this game... only if he can kick my ass on it. Damn!, I hate you Wii Sports!!!.

It's as attractive as a real bowling alley.

I hope it comes with a can of disinfectant and toe jam that I can spray into my shoes to really replicate the experience.

@PapaBear434:
I doubt you'd see many broken TVs from that, mainly because of the differences in how you hold the controllers, and that you'd likely be sitting (and farther away) while playing the PS3.

@MarvinTheParanoidGamer:

No, I think you misunderstand me. The game I am talking about Cresente played at Gamers Day, he said that it was held in the middle of the SIXAXIS between the hand grips, and you swung it just like you would a bowling ball. The motion sensing in the remote acted the same as it would in the Wiimote.

I'm not talking the standart "Push a button to set your speed" game that consoles usually get for bowling games.

standart = standard. Sorry, three year old on my lap makes it hard to type on a laptop.

It looks like the ball is floating above the surface of the lane. Fuck that.

@satsantokh: prolly cuz he threw it...

@PapaBear434:

There's a video of High Velocity Bowling for the PSN on gamespot if you really want to know, it's on the second line from the bottom

[e3.gamespot.com]

the developer demonstrates how it's used if that's of any help

*second line under teh thursday tab

@PapaBear434:

Well, I hope you like slumming it when it comes to character models and texture graphics.

It's this kind of thinking that makes some idiots think that TRANSFORMERS is a better movie than TERMINATOR. Or that some of the modern CGI DRECK movies are as good as TOY STORY (whose graphcs are already dated compared to the newest films)

PS3 and XBOX360 graphics are nice, but they are actually nowhere near as good as MOVIE CGI anyway...

...even 20 year old CGI.

GEARS of WAR is cool eye-candy when you first look at it, but after about a minute of play, you realize it's just a shiny coat of CGI paint on the same old FPS shooter I try to manipulate with the same abstract button-mashing control scheme I did when I played DOOM or Counterstrike. It doesn't look "photoreal". Even a 2 year old wouldn't think it's "photoreal".
-
ANYBODY WITH A BRAIN who plays a COMPUTER or CONSOLE GAME QUICKLY starts to view the characters and objects in the game as SYMBOLIC representations, not as an "illusion of reality".

Improved graphical quality on a TV screen is NOT going to produce proportionate increase in "immersion". Doubling your resolution yields maybe a 1% improvement in the "illusion of reality". It still all looks bloody fake. All figures LOOK FAKE, and MOVE even FAKER.
-
The areas in which significant improvemens in "immersion" are going to easily occur are via the CONTROL INTERFACE (and possibly stereoscopic headsets/sound, etc.) You can double your "immersion factor" in a sword game, by letting you actually swing it.

Holy crap this thing is going to sell BIG. That's B. I. G.

@dcartist:

If you notice, I'm not complaining about the graphics. I am just pointing out why they look like they do.

I don't care what the Wii games look like anymore. I don't have one, though Wii-Fit has me interested enough to try and find one when it is released. But the fact of the matter is, graphics are going to suck as long as they are aiming soley at the casual crowd, becasue they don't have any incentive to do better.

Yes, gameplay and immersion is important, but only an idiot can say that graphics play no part in that stew.

@alucard_0007:

Thanks, I am interested, actually.

@alucard_0007:

Yeah, they said that the controls worked well, but took some getting used to. And like I said, with no wrist strap, that thing will go flying pretty good I'd imagine.

Still, it looks good enough, and for $10 from the PSN, what the hell?

@dcartist: That's the most load of sense I've ever read on any gaming site ever.

I wish more people would realise this. Making characters look like they're wrapped in a condom really does nothing for the immersion factor when you realise it's exactly the same thing you've played possibly 10 years ago, just with a different veneer.

@dcartist: Gears of War was blatantly stylized. Nobody in their right mind would say that Gears was going for straight-up photorealism. Calling Counter-Strike "abstract button-mashing" is absolutely laughable. Go play a round and mash buttons and see how well you do.

"... TOY STORY (whose graphcs are already dated compared to the newest films)"

Sure, there are lame movies that technically look better than Toy Story. But Toy Story is by no means an ugly movie even by modern standards, and its animation was extremely high quality. It was, and still is, quite believable for the style it was in. Have you forgotten that Toy Story was cutting-edge CGI when it was released?

"GEARS of WAR is... just a shiny coat of CGI paint on the same old FPS shooter..."

Not really. The graphics are the most hyped feature of the game, yes, but it integrated diverse gampeplay elements and very strongly emphasized a sense of atmosphere. Half the fun of that game was its sense of atmosphere, which was partly accomplished through the excellent use of team AI and co-op gameplay. There's more than meets the eye there.

"It still all looks bloody fake."

Since the hardware isn't capable of it in most situations, very few studios go for straight photorealism. Are you really going to hold non-photorealistic graphics against games that aren't actually even trying for them? The vast majority of games coming out have some form of stylization to the visuals. Burnout Paradise is a notable exception, however; go take a look at their trailer for and come back and tell me that it looks "bloody fake."

When will people learn that gameplay and graphics aren't entirely independent entities? Seeing impacts from each weapon shot enhance the gameplay feeling that you are causing massive destruction. Watching something blink out of existence isn't nearly as satisfying as watching it explode in a ball of flames or zap into a ball of lightning or disappear under a cartoony poof that shoots out little stars.

No matter what kind of gameplay you have, be it revolutionary or mundane, quality visuals are important. Whether or not they are cutting-edge big-budget pseudorealism is a separate matter. High quality graphics are not synonymous with big budgets.

Graphics do matter, period.

This looks like ass. Even the limbless Mii's look better.

@ CAPTIOSUS: Mario Party 8 is the already the best selling of all the Mario Party games.

@Toasticus:

It was, and still is, quite believable for the style it was in.
-
"Quite believable for the style it was in"???

BWAHAHAH... that was utterly meaningless. What does that phrase even mean? PONG was "quite believable for the style it was in" too. So is LITTLE MERMAID. As is MARIO 64.
-
"Have you forgotten that Toy Story was cutting-edge CGI when it was released?
-
Of course. One of my main points IS that TOY STORY was cutting edge CGI when it was released 12 years ago. Yet, I enjoy TOY STORY today, as much as I did the day it came out, and more than any other PIXAR movie... despite the fact that the CGI was produced TWELVE YEARS AGO, on much SLOWER PROCESSORS, with very BASIC LIGHTING AND PHYSICS, SIMPLER TEXTURES, and MUCH LOWER POLYGON COUNTS than we are used to today.

Did you honestly not get that?? :eyeroll:

Nobody cares if this game looks real, guys. We just care that it doesn't look like shit. Developers are starting to get too cozy with this whole "people understand the Wii has worse graphics" thing. They need to wake up and realize that you can't use some shitty art intern's models for the game.

You guys gave the graphics in Ultimate Duck Hunting such a hard time, so why the hell are you defending this game? I've messed around with the models in Ultimate Duck Hunting (my Maya teacher did the art on the game) and I didn't get displaced vertices shooting out of the characters armpits.

It's not really a matter of how many polygons are on the character, it's the fact that the artists didn't properly weight the joints on the character's skeleton. They can easily fix that (and thus fix the dislocated arms, the stretching, and the jagged vertices) in a matter of hours.

It's just people like (some of) you guys (the ones defending the graphics), who make developers think they don't have to put in those extra hours to fix these problems. The Wii can do a hell of a lot better than this and I think it is high time the developers realize it and stop churning out such shitty visuals.

@dcartist: even though toy story is 12 years old, it was still made on what was, at the time, pretty much a supercomputer. the ps3's cell processor and gpu combined can achieve 2 teraflops, 1.8 of which is from the gpu, making it essentially more powerful than the most powerful computer on earth 10 years ago.
but, does that mean what the gpu renders will look better than the most impressive movie CG 10 years ago? hell no. because video game companies arent going to spend tens of millions of dollars producing a single game, nor are they going to spend 5 years making it.

and, im not exactly defending the wii's graphics, but it has about as much power as a mid-range pc from the turn of the millienium... (729 mhz cpu)