Gaming Vote the graphics of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days

[Overlord Nadrian]

I think these are the best graphics on the DS. Prove me wrong.

 

[DxEggman]

i say n64 but all nds 3d graphics are like that =P

The DS graphics usually are considerably better than N64 graphics. Look at Mario 64 Ds.

 

[Jakob95]

Super Mario 64 has better graphics than this. And so does Mario hoops and Mario Kart. But this game is awesome I love the combat.

 

[granville]

100% N64 quality at least. The PS1 had an issue with 3d I like to call the "polygon shake" or what I believe others call polygon tearing. Basically, the 3D models look very jittery in motion on the PS1. The N64 didn't have this issue. Plus, fully 3D PS1 games with the same amount of 3D and effects onscreen at once have almost never reached speeds of 30FPS, which this game has so far been doing constantly without lag for me.

I could actually say there ARE better looking games on the DS than KH, but none of them have the amount of action, amount of 3D characters allowed onscreen at once, or the huge enormous worlds this one does. Mario Hoops for example, is gorgeous and probably one of the most impressive 3D games on DS. It runs at 60FPS too. But it only allows 6 characters on screen at a given time or else there would be tremendous. This game allows more than twice that amount of 3D characters onscreen at once without ever going below the 30 frames per second lock.

 

[soulfire]

it is n64 for sure ^^

i hope there wil be more games with nice graphics ^^

 

[hitmun]

IMO....these are good graphics for an NDS game

, compared to all the other kiddy looking games

 

[cupajoe]

These graphics are comparative to the kind of graphics Square produced at the end of the PS1's run. They are pretty impressive, and I think that a good game to compare it to would be Final Fantasy VIII.

 

[GeekyGuy]

Been playing it a bit, and it's definitely a good-looking 3D game on DS. Not sure it's Square Enix's best work, though. Definitely PS1-looking to me. The close-ups of the characters look great, but since you rarely see them up close, I think they would have done better to make it look good from a distance. Still, I ain't complainin'. It's a KH game on DS that plays like a real KH game. What's not to love? The main thing is, they seem to have done a pretty good job with the camera, which is no small order with everything else going on in the game.

 

[kennypu]

I believe this thread is partially pointless, because it is comparing with the bigger consoles. It should compare with other DS games such as FF echoes of time, etc.
Anyways compared with other GAMES, I believe it is very good. Nice scenery, moving clouds, lighting, effects, etc. the animation also is all very nice ( I love how they eat the popsickles xD). Over all best graphics (3D wise) on the DS currently. Too bad the 3D is still pixelated. They should find a way to make 3D games so that it does not use whatever engine they have been using, rather one that will lessen the pixelaration.

 

[granville]

You may not be aware of this, but ALL 3D games on the DS have pixelation. This is not anything related to the game engine or a lack of skill among developers. The DS itself is at fault in this regard. It lacks the ability to filter textures. What that does is blend the pixels together when the texture is enlarged bigger than its original size. The N64 had this feature and the PS1 to an extent did as well. The DS does not, and that is why 3D games on it will always look pixelated. There is nothing that can be done about this except increase the texture size as much as possible.

 

[kennypu]

You may not be aware of this, but ALL 3D games on the DS have pixelation. This is not anything related to the game engine or a lack of skill among developers. The DS itself is at fault in this regard. It lacks the ability to filter textures. What that does is blend the pixels together when the texture is enlarged bigger than its original size. The N64 had this feature and the PS1 to an extent did as well. The DS does not, and that is why 3D games on it will always look pixelated. There is nothing that can be done about this except increase the texture size as much as possible.

I understand this. I was just saying it would be nice if they find some type of exploit, or a way around the hardware issue. It probobly cannot be helped, but even if its a game with a bunch of sphere and cubes, if it is not pixelerated it would be nice.

 

[EliteKill]

When I saw this poll, I immidiately jumped to PS1/N64, but then I remembered how MGS1 looked... So I went to youtube and even from the low-quality videos I could see that KHDS is better, so I knew I was going to vote either PS2 or GC. Now, I remember hearing from someone that the GC was more powerful (I don't believe him) so I voted PS2. The game looks more PS2ish than PS1ish....

BTW, The cutscenes look PS2 all the way.

 

[nicman000]

To be honest, I think a question like "What do you think the graphics of X game compare to?" would have been better. That question still wouldn't make proper sense though. Because the "graphics" of a game is not normally determined by the system, but by the developers.

Yes, I know that the system limits how "good" they can look, but it does not limit the amount of effort the developers can put into utilizing the system to its limits. The graphical limitations of a system are defined by how and what the processors can handle (The ones that handle graphical processing anyway, through the use of hard filters and such), the amount of storage (Like, texture cache). But if a developer was to put minimal effort into the graphics of a game on one system and another developer was to put a lot of effort into the graphics of a game on another system, then they are not really comparable at all either because you can't say that this game has "DS graphics" and this one has "Nintendo 64 graphics" when the developer put no effort in to the graphics of one of the games.

The point of this post is to say that you can't really compare a games graphics to a video games systems "graphics", because they're completely different ideas. There's no such thing as "Nintendo 64 graphics", you could talk about the way the 64 handles video processing or how a game on that system looked in comparison to X game. If you want to compare the graphics of one game to another game of that era (or one of a certain platform) by providing examples to compare to, then it would make much more sense.

If you wanted to make a generalization of the "best looking" games on a system (For example: Conker's Bad Fur Day) and then compare those to the generalization of the "best looking" games on another system, that would also make sense.

 

[Ultratech87]

Looking at the graphics has me thinking of KH1, but with PS1 graphics. Still, it looks damn good considering it's on the DS. (Also had me thinking of MGS1.)

They definitely got the cutscenes looking good.

 

[Azatos]

They look like DS graphics.

 

[nicman000]

They look like DS graphics.

It's great to know that I was completely ignored

 

[psychospacefish]

The models and textures are on par with Vagrant Story... but the game looks closer to a PS2 game just because of the art-direction, they did a great job of making everything look better than it should.

 

[Domination]

To be honest, I think a question like "What do you think the graphics of X game compare to?" would have been better. That question still wouldn't make proper sense though. Because the "graphics" of a game is not normally determined by the system, but by the developers.

Yes, I know that the system limits how "good" they can look, but it does not limit the amount of effort the developers can put into utilizing the system to its limits. The graphical limitations of a system are defined by how and what the processors can handle (The ones that handle graphical processing anyway, through the use of hard filters and such), the amount of storage (Like, texture cache). But if a developer was to put minimal effort into the graphics of a game on one system and another developer was to put a lot of effort into the graphics of a game on another system, then they are not really comparable at all either because you can't say that this game has "DS graphics" and this one has "Nintendo 64 graphics" when the developer put no effort in to the graphics of one of the games.

The point of this post is to say that you can't really compare a games graphics to a video games systems "graphics", because they're completely different ideas. There's no such thing as "Nintendo 64 graphics", you could talk about the way the 64 handles video processing or how a game on that system looked in comparison to X game. If you want to compare the graphics of one game to another game of that era (or one of a certain platform) by providing examples to compare to, then it would make much more sense.

If you wanted to make a generalization of the "best looking" games on a system (For example: Conker's Bad Fur Day) and then compare those to the generalization of the "best looking" games on another system, that would also make sense.

Great to know, Nintendo put in so much effort in Mario Lugi RPG 3!!!!! Can't wait for the divine PS3 levelled graphics

No its not really determined by the developers efforts..... some developers can use information from the previous games or get the knowledge through collabration with veterans for the best Graphics. Gameplay is what really comes out of efforts IMO

 

[Jakob95]

Mario and Luigi Rpg 3 doesn't have good graphics. It is 2D.

 

[ball2012003]

how would people vote the graphics looks like ps1 graphics
unless your talking about the cutscenes