Metro: Last Light Developer Dumps on Wii U

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

nexus:
The Wii U isn't next-gen. It's "slightly better" than last-gen.

Another one. *sigh*

For the five-millionth time, the graphics of a console do NOT determine what generation it came from. Generation is based entirely around the time period during which the console is released.

Seriously, this ignorant tripe about Nintendo's recent consoles not being "in the same gen" needs to stop. It's misinformed and basically fanboi prattle that contributes nothing to a serious discussion. How good or bad the Wii U console is, that remains to be seen. But whether it has good or bad hardware, whether it is successful or not, it is part of the same gen as the next Sony or Microsoft device, and should be compared to them in the future once those consoles have been released.

CriticKitten:

Seriously, this ignorant tripe about Nintendo's recent consoles not being "in the same gen" needs to stop. It's misinformed and basically fanboi prattle that contributes nothing to a serious discussion. How good or bad the Wii U console is, that remains to be seen. But whether it has good or bad hardware, whether it is successful or not, it is part of the same gen as the next Sony or Microsoft device, and should be compared to them in the future once those consoles have been released.

It's not "ignorant tripe". It is absolutely relevant and more of a dig, I don't know why you didn't pick up on that? It's a dig. The hardware is more or less consistent with "last gen", which is absurd. When Microsoft and Sony dump their "next gen" or "this gen" since apparently Nintendo already started, then the Wii U will not meet the standard.. which is why everyone talks about it in that manner.

Its more or less just disappointing, as it was being lauded for being "high power" for the hype period.. and turns out it really isn't.

Your "fanboi" accusations are kind of remarkable, considering you're telling people to shut up and "wait for the future" before criticizing the console. Okay.

nexus:

It's not "ignorant tripe". It is absolutely relevant and more of a dig, I don't know why you didn't pick up on that? It's a dig. The hardware is more or less consistent with "last gen", which is absurd. When Microsoft and Sony dump their "next gen" or "this gen" since apparently Nintendo already started, then the Wii U will not meet the standard.. which is why everyone talks about it in that manner.

Actually, the hardware is farther ahead then the 360/PS3. Sure, it's not Modern PC tech, but it's still farther ahead. The PS3/360 had Tech from 2003,2004? The WiiU has tech from 2008-2009 (From what I've read). It's still years ahead from PS3 and 360.

Think about it; The Last Generation, Xbox 360 games started out looking like Xbox games. They advanced to look so much better (Compare Condemned with Condemned 2). So think of it this way, if the WiiU looks slightly better then 360/PS3 right now, imagine the future when the developers can play with it more?

Also, I don't know what Microsoft can do, but I can almost Guarantee you that the PS4 will not be a powerhouse. If anything, it will be the PS2 of this generation. The PS4 can't be a powerhouse cause it would cost them too much money, money which they don't have, and they would have to sell it at a lost, costing them more money, and it would still be too expensive for anyone to buy. For reference, the PS3 cost 800$ to make, and they sold it at "Five Hundred Ninety Nine US dollars". People weren't willing to shill 599 for a console, and thus, the PS3 suffered, causing Sony to loose money, money which they have only started to make back (And loose to the Vita). Sony cannot continue down the path of Power-Housery, they have to do something cheap or else be destroyed. I can guarantee you, the PS4 will be 'weak'. It will be as 'weak' as the WiiU is.

CrossLOPER:

lacktheknack:
Not very diplomatic, but completely fair.

THQ are probably THRILLED with the statement, though.

I continue to mostly not sympathize with a publisher that is incapable of reaping profits from Warhammer 40k and Saints Row. I do feel for the developers stuck with them.

I say mostly because EA and Activision are the ones too entitled for my ire.

They DO reap profits mate, you should do some research before commenting on their situation. The UDraw tablet's investment was almost a pure loss (in the millions) and if I recall correctly the man that backed it most at THQ isn't there (due to the fact it was an obviously stupid idea).

Captcha: Marry me. Nothanks SOLVEmedia

Mr.Mattress:

Also, I don't know what Microsoft can do, but I can almost Guarantee you that the PS4 will not be a powerhouse. If anything, it will be the PS2 of this generation. The PS4 can't be a powerhouse cause it would cost them too much money, money which they don't have, and they would have to sell it at a lost, costing them more money, and it would still be too expensive for anyone to buy. For reference, the PS3 cost 800$ to make, and they sold it at "Five Hundred Ninety Nine US dollars". People weren't willing to shill 599 for a console, and thus, the PS3 suffered, causing Sony to lose money, money which they have only started to make back (And loose to the Vita). Sony cannot continue down the path of Power-Housery, they have to do something cheap or else be destroyed. I can guarantee you, the PS4 will be 'weak'. It will be as 'weak' as the WiiU is.

They sold it for $1200 here at a profit so your argument is invalid.

Darmy647:
Im curious about something, and im Defidentally sure the escapist community would be happy to fill me in, but isn't the wii u cpu on par with the 360 and ps3?? I have not been keeping up, pc gamer elites and what-not.

His argument is erroneous. First the Wii U's processor is well above the current generation. However, if he was expecting a huge jump that just wasn't going to happen. CPU speeds have been stagnant for almost the last decade. If he thinks the Wii U CPU is too Slow for his game then So is every PC and Console CPU so he has no market for his game. If he had kept his complaint more general then no one would be able to call him out on his bull, but he singled out the CPU. I highly doubt that IBM's flagship Power Arch used in Watson is too Slow for anyone. It might be too difficult to design for, but I doubt that since they went with the 3 core design that the 360 went with which is what make the 360 easier to code for. Details from IBM would be nice. However, given the fiasco with the PS3 and 360 Processor Nintendo probably put them under a iron clad contract. The Fiasco, if you're not aware, is were IBM sold the same chip design to MS and Sony. True story, the designer wrote a book about it. With a couple of minor details the chips are basically the same architecture. MS basically went up to IBM and said we want the chip you're making for Sony in our system but we want it sooner and with XBox backwards compatibility. Sony opted out of hardware level backwards compatibility due to price and thought that they would be able to resolve the issue in emulation, never worked. MS was unhappy initially because the Backward compatibility made their version a little weaker, but their loss of 1 core and double bonding to make 3 core made it easier to work with paid off.

The entire thing actually sounds like THQ doing a CYA to justify to their board why they aren't making any games for the Wii U. If they can go to their board and say "See here one of our developers says it's not good". They are ultimately making a bet on their jobs. If it turns out that the Wii U sells even better than the Wii then heads will roll. The board will be very upset if come this time next year that the Wii U is the top selling system, and they have no games on it.

Abandon4093:

But yea, the Wii-U isn't much more powerful than the PS3. We're seeing the upper limit of what devs can squeeze out of that, so we're not going to see that much improvement over the Wii-U's lifetime. One of the major reason that games gradually look better over the course of a consoles life is the technology that comes out on the development side. Improvements in software such as Maya and Mudbox for instance, the building tools themselves. Of-course there's a learning curve with regards to what the devs can squeeze out of a consoles capabilities. But the big leaps in graphical fidelity come from the way the artists manage the building process.

We're already at the upper-limit of what artists can achieve with the amount of processing power and memory the current gen of consoles have to offer. And the Wii-U simply doesn't offer that much more. It's lifetime graphical improvement will be nothing in comparison to that of the 360 and PS3.

And when Sony and Microsoft release their new machines, we'll have a whole new ceiling to work towards and Nintendo's entry is going to be left in the dust as far as graphics go, once again.

Sorry, but have I been somehow transported to an alternative universe where everyone has discovered the exact make and spec of the Wii U hardware?

We cannot yet say for certain how the Wii U stacks up to the PS360, because we do not yet know the exact specs of the CPU and GPU.

What we do know is that it has twice the amount of RAM for games, and 32mb of eDRAM (compared to 10mb for the 360 and none for the PS3). There is a strong suspicion that the GPU is a custom Radeon e6760. All the info relessed so far place it as being either that card, or something very similar. If true, then the GPU by itself would be several times more powerful than either 360/PS3 GPU. Not only that, but with the GP-GPU component, it would also be able to handle some of the CPU tasks, freeing up the CPU to do other stuff.

The point here is that we don't know just exactly what the specs are, so claiming that developers won't be able to develop prettier games on the Wii U is completely pointless. There are rumours and evidence, however, which suggest that even if the CPU is weaker, the console itself will still be much more powerful. Frozenbyte have said that they'd have to downgrade the graphics by a fair amount to get Trine 2: Directors Cut running on the PS360. They've also said they managed to get the game running without taxing the system at all. Shi'nen Software have said much the same thing with Nano Assault, and that the Wii U will be able to play games with much more visual oomph than current-gen when developers start really looking into the machine.

Your points about developer resources seem a bit off base. The Wii has twice the amount of RAM on offer than the PS3, and about four times the amount of RAM of the PS3. That means that developers working on the Wii U will be able to load far higher quality textures, for one thing, than are currently do-able on current gen, simply because there's more space to load them into the memory. And that's ignoring the big likelihood that the GPU is more advanced, and will be able to push higher-poly models.

And the fact that the Wii U can apparently output to 1080p no sweat (unlike the PS360) means that developers working on the console should be able to make games with none of the pixelly low-res crap that affects games on current consoles *glares at Battlefield 3 and Halo Reach*

rapidoud:

Mr.Mattress:

Also, I don't know what Microsoft can do, but I can almost Guarantee you that the PS4 will not be a powerhouse. If anything, it will be the PS2 of this generation. The PS4 can't be a powerhouse cause it would cost them too much money, money which they don't have, and they would have to sell it at a lost, costing them more money, and it would still be too expensive for anyone to buy. For reference, the PS3 cost 800$ to make, and they sold it at "Five Hundred Ninety Nine US dollars". People weren't willing to shill 599 for a console, and thus, the PS3 suffered, causing Sony to lose money, money which they have only started to make back (And loose to the Vita). Sony cannot continue down the path of Power-Housery, they have to do something cheap or else be destroyed. I can guarantee you, the PS4 will be 'weak'. It will be as 'weak' as the WiiU is.

They sold it for $1200 here at a profit so your argument is invalid.

No, it's not invalid, because one simple thing is needed to be determined: How many sold at 1200$? How many more sold when price drops hit? Did you buy a PS3 at 1200$? Did you wait for a Price Drop? How many people kept their 1200$ dollar PS3's?

The PS3 was basically in 3rd place everywhere (Except in Japan), and it still hemorrhaged them money. Even if they didn't sell it at a lost where you are, do you honestly think a lot of people were buying it at such an expensive price? I know I wouldn't have. A console that isn't being sold at a loss but isn't being sold is no better then selling a console at a loss and selling it.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
snip

It has 1gb of RAM available for the games, which is twice as much as the PS3 and 360. But twice as much of a small amount is still a small amount. Even with a consoles light OS, 1GB of RAM is archaic.

It's GPU only supports up to DirectX 10. So it's really not worth wondering what it's clock speed is going to be. Developers still aren't going to be able to get all that loveliness out of their engines.

me:
We're already at the upper-limit of what artists can achieve with the amount of processing power and memory the current gen of consoles have to offer. And the Wii-U simply doesn't offer that much more. It's lifetime graphical improvement will be nothing in comparison to that of the 360 and PS3.

The Wii-U would have been a fantastic entry (graphically) in the console race 3 years back. When this generation was mid stride.

But for an early entry to the next generation of consoles, it's underwhelming. If they want the console to remain graphically impressive for the next 5+ years. Double the amount of RAM of a 7 year old console isn't going to cut it. We should be seeing no less than 3GB, preferably 4. We should be seeing DirectX 11 compatibility and atleast 1GB , preferably 2, of Video memory.

The point people are making is that this is going to be the Wii all over again. It's going to be left behind visually as soon as the next gen really kicks off and it's going to have to focus on it's gimmick to sell games.

Sure that hit's a fantastic niche for Nintendo and they'll probably print money. But it's not going to be a viable option for the multiplatform releases, assuming Sony and Microsoft continue their trend of releasing powerful machines that have some staying power.

You might even be right, and we may see some level of improvement over the Wii-U's life. Maybe even as much as the current gen got.

But that's not really going to mean much if Sony and Microsfot release consoles that have 3-4 times the resources available to the Wii-U. I could build a PC about that powerful for about 200. On a mass production scale, it's certainly doable.

rapidoud:

They DO reap profits mate, you should do some research before commenting on their situation.

Oh, OK. So they took what profits they had and flung it out the window. Great. That's much better.

Wow got to love the way people soak up misinformation that conforms to what they believe and repeat it as gospel truth.

Come back when you have some facts. we do know it's an mcm chip with 2 gig of ram and a dedicated sound chip that the gpgpu can do some cpu functions. So there is already some big differences that take a load off of the cpu then the architecture is newer so should be much more efficient.

Oh and it plays games............I'm still getting mine ignorance might be bliss for some people.
I couldn't care for the specs I can't wait to have a blast on Tekken ball mode the new mario, zelda, dragon quest, monster hunter, and all those other fantastic games that will be popping up over the next few years.

What's that you say 3rd party developers wont make games for it after ps4 and xbox720 come out, well darn best i buy a pc also and play all those done to death shooters at there best.

Nintendo and Indy developers is where it's going to be at over the next 10 years sony and microsoft and all those publishers can take their focus groups/statistics and shove them up their ass.

Here's something to consider about the next-gen of consoles; how much better can graphics really get?

And I mean on a practical level here.

From where I'm sitting, I get the feeling that the next gen will most likely be defined by improved network connections, advanced social interaction and online streaming (like OnLive, etc). There may also be more of a focus on improved and enhanced user interfaces, and more of a focus on designing the perfect 'home entertainment' system that does everything (including making your tea) and less on designing a machine that's solely intended for playing games. Basically the improvements will be in what's considered right now to be the boring back-stage stuff.

In terms of graphics, the improvement curve is starting to plateau now, and I'm not entirely convinced it's because of current gen limitations. For the next generations of games, there may be a slight bump up in the visuals and audio, as seen in the Wii-U, but I'm skeptical that it will be as much of a leap as it was between - say - the PS2 and PS3.

Remember, if it's still extremely expensive to make an A+ game to current-gen specs at the end of the current cycle, imagine how much more money developers and publishers would have to sink into a next-gen game if everything has to be near-to-photorealistic.

The industry just won't be able to sustain that, especially in this day and age.

One of the reasons why the Wii became the surprise seller this generation was because Sony and Microsoft were basically stuck in a glorified dick-swinging contest over who had the best graphics. Seriously, the E3 conference where they unveiled their new consoles, Sony and Microsoft should have just brought out two Jeremy Clarksons to duel over who could scream "POWER!!!!" the loudest.

It reached a point that still stands to this day; there's very little difference in what the PS3 and Xbox 360 have to offer, which doesn't really leave much by way of choice between the two. Really, if you're going to buy one, you may as well just decide on the flip of a coin.

The Wii, however, wisely chose to distance itself from that schoolyard war and focus on providing a new user interface that was easy to sell and exciting at the time (still is, in my humble opinion, when it's done right). That's how it won over so many wallets; it set itself apart from its competitors (I know, that's business 101 stuff, but it still needs to be said).

The Wii-U's a tougher sell, and frankly Nintendo haven't been doing a very good job at it, but I do think the gamepad controller is enough of an innovation to see the console at least do a lot better in the long run when people fully "get it", so to speak.

I wouldn't necessarily call the gamepad a game-changer in the way motion controls have been, but it does have the potential for more practical uses in and outside of the gaming world than its naysayers claim.

The tl:dr version: in my humble opinion, the next generation may not be defined by power, but more by the difference in player experience.

As it stands right now, and as Jim Sterling has already pointed out on this very website, the Wii-U kind of has the edge on that right now.

Foolproof:
Are you going to show the unbiased videos showing the extreme slowdown of Arkham City on the WiiU where it drops to a single digit framerate now? Or are you going to admit you are not even fucking close to being unbiased?

Can you show us a video of Skyrim's DLC running on a PS3?

Kmadden2004:

Foolproof:
Are you going to show the unbiased videos showing the extreme slowdown of Arkham City on the WiiU where it drops to a single digit framerate now? Or are you going to admit you are not even fucking close to being unbiased?

Can you show us a video of Skyrim's DLC running on a PS3?

Can you give a single reason why thats in any way shape or form relevant?

Foolproof:

Kmadden2004:

Foolproof:
Are you going to show the unbiased videos showing the extreme slowdown of Arkham City on the WiiU where it drops to a single digit framerate now? Or are you going to admit you are not even fucking close to being unbiased?

Can you show us a video of Skyrim's DLC running on a PS3?

Can you give a single reason why thats in any way shape or form relevant?

Just making the point that you can't judge a console's performance on one crappy port.

Kmadden2004:

Foolproof:

Kmadden2004:

Can you show us a video of Skyrim's DLC running on a PS3?

Can you give a single reason why thats in any way shape or form relevant?

Just making the point that you can't judge a console's performance on one crappy port.

You can when the company spent a full fucking 15 minutes of E3 talking about a year old game. If they play it up they fucking well better be able to deliver.

Kmadden2004:

Foolproof:

Kmadden2004:

Can you show us a video of Skyrim's DLC running on a PS3?

Can you give a single reason why thats in any way shape or form relevant?

Just making the point that you can't judge a console's performance on one crappy port.

Er, but they didnt release the DLC onto the PS3 because they knew it wouldnt work.

They didnt just throw it out there and go "Oops it drops your game into the shit! Oh well!"

So the DLC example was pretty off, though I dont know if they ever fixed the chugging problem with the base game for PS3

FelixG:

Kmadden2004:

Foolproof:
Can you give a single reason why thats in any way shape or form relevant?

Just making the point that you can't judge a console's performance on one crappy port.

Er, but they didnt release the DLC onto the PS3 because they knew it wouldnt work.

They didnt just throw it out there and go "Oops it drops your game into the shit! Oh well!"

So the DLC example was pretty off, though I dont know if they ever fixed the chugging problem with the base game for PS3

That's kind of the point I was making, the DLC issue is only the latest in a long list of problems to hit the base game, and wouldn't have even been an issue if Bethesda had taken more care in porting the game over to the PS3.

Foolproof:

Kmadden2004:

Foolproof:
Can you give a single reason why thats in any way shape or form relevant?

Just making the point that you can't judge a console's performance on one crappy port.

You can when the company spent a full fucking 15 minutes of E3 talking about a year old game. If they play it up they fucking well better be able to deliver.

Yeah, no dice, friend.

Nintendo didn't oversee the porting of the game, and their giving Warner Interactive x amount of time to advertise their wares at the E3 conference is immaterial to that.

So the point still stands; you can't judge a console's performance on one crappy port.

CriticKitten:

nexus:
It's not "ignorant tripe".

Yes, it is.

There's no worming your way around this one. The term "generation" has a definition. So does the phrase "console generation". You're using it incorrectly in both instances.

Ergo it is nothing BUT ignorant tripe. The sort of tripe used only by someone who isn't even trying to be objective in their assessment of the product. Ergo, fanboi. And judging from your last post, I'd wager PC fanboi.

Come back when you have something of meaning to add to this discussion.

Your "fanboi" accusations are kind of remarkable, considering you're telling people to shut up and "wait for the future" before criticizing the console. Okay.

Nice try, but you're not going to turn that argument back around on me, given the context of your previous post.

I'm the one saying that we need to wait and see what its actual specs are, and how its game library pans out over the next year or two, before we can label any console as a success or failure. That's what a smart consumer does: they actually investigate the product before determining whether or not to buy one.

You, on the other hand, are declaring the instant failure on a console based on the quality of its graphics in comparison to a PC (nevermind that consoles generally NEVER surpass the quality of a top-end PC at their time of release, since that would make the console impossibly high-priced to build). And you also rattled off about its poor graphical quality while knowing nothing about the console's internal hardware or its capabilities (which could be better or worse than existing consoles, the truth of which isn't known yet).

Not hard to figure out which of us is the educated party and which is the drooling fanboi. But in case you're struggling to put the pieces together, let me offer a hint: you're the latter.

You're accusing me of being a fanboy still, no words.

Also never said Wii U was a complete failure, I said it's an overhyped disappointment. It has nothing to do with "graphics", but more to do with pushing the industry forward. Consoles always set the bar because that's all companies invest in today. Good hardware not only means better visuals, but also more stuff on screen, better performance, wider range of possibilities.

So you're damn right I'm going to criticize it. Why? Because it costs $400+. I'll wait and see alright, but I'm not holding my breath.

nexus:
You're accusing me of being a fanboy still, no words.

Because it's still true. Pretending it's not true isn't going to work.

Also never said Wii U was a complete failure, I said it's an overhyped disappointment. It has nothing to do with "graphics", but more to do with pushing the industry forward.

I'm reminded of a recent post....

Some Dude:
Also, the best looking version of any game is without a doubt the PC version, phenomenally more so in fact. Unless of course it's a shoddy port, then it won't look well on PC.. which is sadly the case for many games today.

Look familiar?

You don't get to rave about how shitty a console's graphics are compared to a PC (which, I'll remind you again, is a STUPID argument to make, since that is literally *always* going to be the case), and then claim that you never bitched about the graphics and how it "isn't about the graphics". Because yes, it was, given that you were bitching about them no less than two posts ago.

Consoles always set the bar because that's all companies invest in today. Good hardware not only means better visuals, but also more stuff on screen, better performance, wider range of possibilities.

Realistically, AAA companies invest in multiple consoles, and it's because they sell more units that way. PC ports are often likely for many games as well because it just means more sales in general.

And again, we still don't know the specs of the Wii U, but all current data suggests that it IS higher in specs than the 360 or PS3. It is intellectually dishonest to keep raving about how it's below the other two when there is no evidence to suggest that it is worse, and several pieces of evidence suggesting that it is better.

So wait for the final specs like a good boy/girl/whatever-you-are, rather than bitching about something you don't know.

So you're damn right I'm going to criticize it. Why? Because it costs $400+.

Except that it's actually $300, or $350 if you look at the 32 GB package. Unless you're quoting an overseas price tag? If you're not, then I have no idea how you managed to get the price tag so wrong.

And if you were just rounding up, then I'm going to tell your science teacher to beat you with a tennis racket, because that is NOT how significant figures work.

CriticKitten:

Also never said Wii U was a complete failure, I said it's an overhyped disappointment. It has nothing to do with "graphics", but more to do with pushing the industry forward.

I'm reminded of a recent post....

Some Dude:
Also, the best looking version of any game is without a doubt the PC version, phenomenally more so in fact. Unless of course it's a shoddy port, then it won't look well on PC.. which is sadly the case for many games today.

Look familiar?

You don't get to rave about how shitty a console's graphics are compared to a PC (which, I'll remind you again, is a STUPID argument to make, since that is literally *always* going to be the case), and then claim that you never bitched about the graphics and how it "isn't about the graphics". Because yes, it was, given that you were bitching about them no less than two posts ago.

That wasn't about the Wii U. I was specifically talking about the video posted comparing Wii U Black Ops 2 to the rest of the consoles, and erroneously, the PC. The video, not the console. The author of the video was saying the Wii U version was better than not only the PS3 or 360, but also the PC. I was remarking how it was false and the PC obviously trumps all 3 consoles. Unless of course, it's a port.

At NO POINT did I say the Wii U was a "complete failure". You keep messing around and typing up crap I never even said.

Honestly, you are the worst Nintendo fanboy I've ever personally dealt with, and I'm bowing out of this nonsense.

Kmadden2004:
Here's something to consider about the next-gen of consoles; how much better can graphics really get?

And I mean on a practical level here.

That's the thing though. Better hardware, and more streamlined software to support it doesn't just improve graphics. It's for *everything*. It is for performance, more stuff on screen, the ability to store more textures in memory which allows for more "content" like larger worlds, and all that good stuff. Better animations, more animations, more characters. Also, of course it encourages the invention of better technology like physics, or new stuff never before explored because older hardware doesn't support it, etc.

It's for everything. You really need computing power to expand games. I mean, we're at a good level right now, but it's just disappointing to see consoles making little hops instead of leaps. Also not a fan of the touch-screen gig.. As someone already mentioned, it sucks away what little precious computing power you have to begin with.

nexus:
That wasn't about the Wii U. I was specifically talking about the video posted comparing Wii U Black Ops 2 to the rest of the consoles, and erroneously, the PC. The video, not the console. The author of the video was saying the Wii U version was better than not only the PS3 or 360, but also the PC. I was remarking how it was false and the PC obviously trumps all 3 consoles. Unless of course, it's a port.

In your exact words: "Also, the best looking version of any game is without a doubt the PC version"

English must not be your primary language, because the word "any" does not refer to one item. It refers to a collective of every item.

What really compounds the problem in this argument is that you're very obviously covering for yourself here. You went from complaining about graphics to claiming that you never mentioned graphics and how it has nothing to do with graphics. From complaining about hardware to suddenly claiming that it's "all about moving the industry forward". You're lying to yourself and everyone else. You've been proven wrong on multiple points and people called you out on it, so you're changing your story and pretending you never said it. Problem is, we have your old posts, so it's not gonna work.

At NO POINT did I say the Wii U was a "complete failure". You keep messing around and typing up crap I never even said.

No, I'm reading precisely what you've said. You have made several posts condemning the console's graphics and hardware, despite the fact that you clearly don't know what hardware it has (because NOBODY does). The only things we have to go on are the few non-specific specs they have released, all of which indicate that the Wii U's hardware is superior to the 360 or PS3. What remains to be seen is exactly what sort of GPU/CPU it's running, and how well it handles processing information. There have been rumors that when the gamepad is running along with the TV, there is a bit of bottlenecking and corners needing to be cut to make them both work, which could indicate a problem with processing power, but that remains to be verified as of yet.

Which is why I said in every single one of my posts (including this one) that you need to stop being brick-headed and wait for the specs to be revealed. Because if you keep raving about how it's obviously got worse hardware, only to be proven wrong, then you'll look like an idiot. Right now, you're just raving like a fanboi.

Honestly, you are the worst Nintendo fanboy I've ever personally dealt with, and I'm bowing out of this nonsense.

Ah yes, ad hominem. And it'd work better if not for the fact that I was primarily a PC gamer.

Whoops.

No worries though. Within another two posts you'll be claiming you never called me a fanboy at all, so everyone will probably forget this embarrassing little snafu on your account, right?

nexus:

Kmadden2004:
Here's something to consider about the next-gen of consoles; how much better can graphics really get?

And I mean on a practical level here.

That's the thing though. Better hardware, and more streamlined software to support it doesn't just improve graphics. It's for *everything*. It is for performance, more stuff on screen, the ability to store more textures in memory which allows for more "content" like larger worlds, and all that good stuff. Better animations, more animations, more characters. Also, of course it encourages the invention of better technology like physics, or new stuff never before explored because older hardware doesn't support it, etc.

It's for everything. You really need computing power to expand games. I mean, we're at a good level right now, but it's just disappointing to see consoles making little hops instead of leaps. Also not a fan of the touch-screen gig.. As someone already mentioned, it sucks away what little precious computing power you have to begin with.

I get what you're saying there, and I'm not really disagreeing with you, but the point I was making (admittedly, I should have picked a better word than "graphics") is that all that stuff (the animation, the textures, the cg-models, etc) all have to be built by somebody and have to be stored during development in a physical location. Developers don't get a magic button that generates all that content, and the more content that's going to be pumped into the game (at ultra-HD quality) is ultimately going to become increasingly (even ludicrously) expensive. I do not think, in this climate, that developers and publishers are going to be up for that.

I recall reading an article where somebody - I think from Epic games - said they were scared shitless about the next generation of consoles specifically because of this reason. At the end of the day, if production and development costs do skyrocket with such a leap in technology, then don't be surprised if game prices start hitting the $80 mark and above.

Ultimately, the point I was really trying (and failing, I guess) to make was that I don't think the next generation of consoles are necessarily going to be super-duper-powered games machines. I think they're going to be built as home entertainment hubs that happen to play games, and the features that come with that shift in focus are ultimately what's going to define the next gen.

That's just my two cents, for what it's worth...

Kmadden2004:
Here's something to consider about the next-gen of consoles; how much better can graphics really get?

And I mean on a practical level here.

How about a fuckton better? Unless of course you're sitting 7 meters away from the screen on an SDTV, in which case, the basic stuff (models, textures) is about as good as it's going to get. But then there's all sorts of new and unheard of effects like dynamic lighting, depth of field, tesselation, or *gasp* shadows that don't suck shit through a straw.

In terms of graphics, the improvement curve is starting to plateau now, and I'm not entirely convinced it's because of current gen limitations. For the next generations of games, there may be a slight bump up in the visuals and audio, as seen in the Wii-U, but I'm skeptical that it will be as much of a leap as it was between - say - the PS2 and PS3.

Remember, if it's still extremely expensive to make an A+ game to current-gen specs at the end of the current cycle, imagine how much more money developers and publishers would have to sink into a next-gen game if everything has to be near-to-photorealistic.

The only - only - reason for the plateauing improvement is the fact that the consoles are at their limits, and have pretty much been there for something like four years.

If the new consoles don't suck in terms of hardware power, as a start, games are going to look a lot better and are going to be easier to develop because the constraints aren't going to be as tight on the developers. Is it going to be the jump between PS2 and PS3? That depends entirely on what you would define that leap as. Are the costs going to get back to the way they are now? Probably. We'll still be getting better games out of that, if for nothing more than having better graphics (and I don't subscribe to the notion of graphics being the only thing that improves with better hardware).

You seem to have one thing entirely backwards. Better hardware allows one to create bigger/better things easier. Postulating that the consoles being at the end of their life cycles somehow means the developers have become very efficient (budget-wise) at developing them as opposed to spending a shitton of money wasting resources, optimizing, downscaling and cutting back to get their games to run on the shitty hardware is nothing short of ridiculous.

Hammeroj:

Kmadden2004:
Here's something to consider about the next-gen of consoles; how much better can graphics really get?

And I mean on a practical level here.

How about a fuckton better?

Your first video is giving me Uncanny Valley. I don't want my games to look like that, that's scary.

As for Unreal Engine 4 and Cry Engine 3: The WiiU can use Both of Those, so you can't complain about it.

Frostbite3789:

Mr.Mattress:
Snip

Oh hey look, an unbiased source came to save the day.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120790-Digital-Foundry-Challenges-Wii-U-Graphics-Claims

... Ahem, that is for Call Of Duty: Black Ops 2... Which uses neither Cry Engine 3 or Unreal Engine 4. Regardless, I have seen Black Ops 2 myself: It does look better then the Xbox 360, but only very slightly, not as the "Leaps and Bounds" like Reggie said. That is exactly what the article says too. So thanks for proving my point.

Mr.Mattress:

Hammeroj:

Kmadden2004:
Here's something to consider about the next-gen of consoles; how much better can graphics really get?

And I mean on a practical level here.

How about a fuckton better?

Your first video is giving me Uncanny Valley. I don't want my games to look like that, that's scary.

As for Unreal Engine 4 and Cry Engine 3: The WiiU can use Both of Those, so you can't complain about it.

...Scary? Wow, okay. Here's what I think. The reason you don't want games to look like that is because you don't want to spend money on new hardware. Otherwise, do you think the way the current animations/models are is actually better?

Oh, thank god it can use those engines. What's that? The Xbox360 and PS3 can use Cryengine 3 and the mere fact that it supports the engine doesn't mean anything? Who would have thought.

The WiiU is not much stronger than either of the current main consoles; it's not even remotely the leap one would expect from a new generation of consoles, and it's going to barely scratch the surface of either of the engines' capabilities. The fact of it being able to run the engine means next to nothing to me, the same way it does with the Xbox360 and the PS3.

Mr.Mattress:

... Ahem, that is for Call Of Duty: Black Ops 2... Which uses neither Cry Engine 3 or Unreal Engine 4. Regardless, I have seen Black Ops 2 myself: It does look better then the Xbox 360, but only very slightly, not as the "Leaps and Bounds" like Reggie said. That is exactly what the article says too. So thanks for proving my point.

And you linked a video...which made the same claim you were at the time. That Black Ops 2 on the Wii U looks leaps and bounds better than it does on the PS3/360 and PC. An outrageous claim you've now backtracked on apparently.

Considering it's on par with the 360 in looks and not performance and can't even begin to measure up with the PC version.

Nice try guy.

Hammeroj:
...Scary? Wow, okay. Here's what I think. The reason you don't want games to look like that is because you don't want to spend money on new hardware. Otherwise, do you think the way the current animations/models are is actually better?

Oh, thank god it can use those engines. What's that? The Xbox360 and PS3 can use Cryengine 3 and the mere fact that it supports the engine doesn't mean anything? Who would have thought.

The WiiU is not much stronger than either of the current main consoles; it's not even remotely the leap one would expect from a new generation of consoles, and it's going to barely scratch the surface of either of the engines' capabilities. The fact of it being able to run the engine means next to nothing to me, the same way it does with the Xbox360 and the PS3.

Or, it's scary looking. That can't be a reason because? I can't think that looks weird? Have you ever heard of Uncanny Valley? I will give you that the animations are a lot more detailed then current stuff, but it still looks really really creepy.

Can the Xbox 360 or PS3 use Unreal Engine 4? No? My point still stands: The WiiU is much stronger then current consoles.

Frostbite3789:

And you linked a video...which made the same claim you were at the time. That Black Ops 2 on the Wii U looks leaps and bounds better than it does on the PS3/360 and PC. An outrageous claim you've now backtracked on apparently.

Considering it's on par with the 360 in looks and not performance and can't even begin to measure up with the PC version.

Nice try guy.

Yes, I did, but I only backed off of it because it falsely includes the PC. However, The WiiU's version is still graphically superior to the 360/PS3, as this non-biased video shows. Also, is the Xbox's version of BLOPS 2 in 1080p? No? I thought so...

Also, I'm going to say that Digital Foundry is wrong. No One Else Has said anything about it bad Gameplay wise. These are the first guys to say anything negative about it, so I think they're just making stuff up, or making mountains out of anthills.

Mr.Mattress:

Hammeroj:
...Scary? Wow, okay. Here's what I think. The reason you don't want games to look like that is because you don't want to spend money on new hardware. Otherwise, do you think the way the current animations/models are is actually better?

Oh, thank god it can use those engines. What's that? The Xbox360 and PS3 can use Cryengine 3 and the mere fact that it supports the engine doesn't mean anything? Who would have thought.

The WiiU is not much stronger than either of the current main consoles; it's not even remotely the leap one would expect from a new generation of consoles, and it's going to barely scratch the surface of either of the engines' capabilities. The fact of it being able to run the engine means next to nothing to me, the same way it does with the Xbox360 and the PS3.

Or, it's scary looking. That can't be a reason because? I can't think that looks weird? Have you ever heard of Uncanny Valley? I will give you that the animations are a lot more detailed then current stuff, but it still looks really really creepy.

Can the Xbox 360 or PS3 use Unreal Engine 4? No? My point still stands: The WiiU is much stronger then current consoles.

That can be a reason. I know what the Uncanny Valley is, but personally I very rarely if ever experience it, especially with video-games. Maybe it's the fact that I don't expect games to do the animations and such perfectly, maybe I'm more prone to enjoy the craftsmanship of such things over noticing the little details and so on. Thing is, it's not even close to universal. That's why I asked you a direct question - do you think the animations/details are better now? Go into detail if you can.

Well then your point is pretty vapid because I at no point said the WiiU is weaker than either of them. In fact I said in the very post you quoted that it's stronger.

Eri:

Xan Krieger:

Darmy647:
Im curious about something, and im Defidentally sure the escapist community would be happy to fill me in, but isn't the wii u cpu on par with the 360 and ps3?? I have not been keeping up, pc gamer elites and what-not.

It should noted that the Wii U is a new system so having hardware equivalent to last gen's systems is nothing to be proud of.

I wish more people understood this fact instead of stupidly defending a blatantly underpowered console.

You should note I'm not calling it a terrible system, I'm calling it 6 years late to the party.

2 or three by my count. Admittedly no one was talking next gen until Nintendo showed up a little unexpected with an HD Wii people were winging about.

That said, yeah this console does give me pause. even if it was lower end I expected it to be an economy option for this generation. I'd be okay with reduced graphics if the physics and enemies on screen and so on weren't on the chopping block. Also this has been the loudest hardware and software failure they've had for awhile. What was before this the Other M broken saves?

It really does feel they've adopted all the terrible aspects of modern gaming industry in their step to be more mainstream losing that quality. they may need to release a WiiU2.0 or redesign ala the PS3 did or the 360 skus.

@Kmadden2004 Don't put yourself with the game/system take a step back. I don't think you're doing wrong, just general advice on these things.

As for the WiiU being a tougher sell. You're damned right.
I don't think we'll see another Wii super sellout.
At ALL.

Hell I think it will be eclipses if Kinect 2/3.0 comes out on the nextbox with glorious tablet integration.

Nintendo is playing a whole lot of catchup, yes catchup because they aren't going sideways they are jumping into the console rat race direct. And I expect there will be tears and heartbreak and tragedy with the online services, misleading on the hardware space, and the ports being a challenge as now freed of motion controls but having no ease with pad support. Maybe WiiU will be more a full implementations of the promises of the revolution, able to sell more individual interface products with games and piecemeal implementations. But that seems risky and Risky in my head says Microsoft, at least that kind of risky. Expect MS to release kinect controllers, tools at to attachments to make the best kinect and compensate for tracking and lack of feedback issues. Moreover their customer base can rely on the midlife tech upgrade from their days a pc gamers and from the 360's coming through

Nintendo however has been kinda doing their own thing and is now trying to out do the competition. Its like a jump from AA to the Majors. There will be screwups. Acknowledging the weaknesses of the console isn't a betrayal or a value judgement.

Mainly what I am hoping is even if graphically only as good as the best PS3 games on average that they keep superior assets and processing. That they figure out how to upgrade to stronger, longer distance, and enduring pads. I hope they mercilessly rip off the MS Glass idea like I proposed a year again (six months before I knew about glass)
I also hope their fans don't feel the need to defend them. Nintendo is a big grown ass company. Its founders are in threat of dying of old age, Miyamoto is RETIRING. They've lasted long enough and proved they know how to do their jobs.

That means its okay to say, yeah there are issues and fears with this design and they have lots to work out. but there is also plentiful good and promising here. But yeah they need to kick the ass of who made the ports they showcased on their floor that makes their console look shitty. They need to apologize for the QA, at the very least I haven't heard a bunch of service horror stories they can admit when they screw up. They need to start selling Hard drives or at least featuring harddrives that work with their consoles as their mandatory installations eat up all the space on their basic units.

Along with this, as they compete in the major leagues, its okay that you're a little tired of New Super Mario Bros (its the third release of this style in 12 months, getting sick of it is perfectly SANE REACTION DEMAND MORE, Nintendo can do better, IS BETTER, than this), for people not into the WiiU or a little sore about the Wii to be all wait and see. Own up to the hardware failures (take it as an opportunity to play up the response but don't deny)

I say this a Nintendo fan. We're in the majors now with a beloved champion don't fight for them BELIEVE in them. And part of that is putting away fear of acknowledgement of their failures.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here