-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Eurogamer expose: how powerful is the Wii U really? (Information from developers)
- Thread starter specialguy
- Start date
Mr. MondayNight
Member
In my opinion looking for ultra high specs when diminishing returns is a very real factor is pretty stupid in this day and age when selling 1 million copies can be considered a flop (financially of course) if you want the console makers to give you super high specs with ultra realistic graphics get used to playing the same games over and over again because studios (and you see evidence of this now) will only make games they know are guaranteed to sell...
TLDR: If you want super high specs don't complain about lack of risks and sequelitis....
TLDR: If you want super high specs don't complain about lack of risks and sequelitis....
yeah on a 1080p tv SNES games look like ass.
Which goes back to the point I was making, if you want to sell a console you need the right mix of graphics, features and games.
Release an SNES system in today's environment, low resolution and all, with great games and an enticing gimmick and it still won't outsell the inevitable 720/ps4.
My original point was that graphics do matter in selling a console. But likewise you could make a god tier graphics console but if it doesn't have any software or interesting features like online it will bomb hard as well.
This was my whole point with my posts but fanboys keep trying to drag it in other directions.
I'll be doing the opposite. I'll pick up the Wii U when Zelda rolls around, and enjoy the Nintendo offerings (and hopefully some unique third party experiences. Another Trauma game, please). I'll also have my 3DS and Vita to keep me occupied, while I wait for a PS4 price drop or redesign.
I see your name fits you well. =p
joking, joking
It's true that you can make a great looking game for any system, but it could only be a great looking game for that system since standards change all the time. No one is going to think a game looks great if it's comparable to a launch 2005/2006 game. We expect more now and publishers know this and will continue to push for this. So while a game may look great for a Wii game, an Ipad game, or whatever system it's running on, that doesn't necessarily mean it looks "good" by today's standards.
I've never whined about the Wii-U's power, but I highly doubt I'll be getting one any time soon. Metroid and Zelda are pretty much the only Nintendo games I care for anymore and they didn't convince me to pick up a Wii.
The DC has some advantages over the PS2, but overall the PS2 is easily the more powerful console. Not sure how anyone can question that at this point. This isn't opinion, it's fact.
Well problem is, with games like BF3, it's all relative. All that smoke and debri is there to cover up the model swap when a wall is blown out. So unless you want a wall to magically disappear and take you out of the game, those effects are needed.
Many things in games today are scalable. We already see engines with various buffer resolutions running on multiple sets of hardware. However some things don't scale well, such as world sizes, poly counts, model counts, etc. Look at the Wii port of Dead Rising as a perfect example. The biggest issue with the port wasn't the dumbed down textures, scaled back models, or anything superficial. The biggest problem was the lack of actual zombies and that's a perfect example of a design that does not scale well with weaker hardware.
If developers push for larger, more populated and interactive worlds next gen, that may not scale very well down to the Wii, no matter how many effects they cut out or how far they lower the resolution of the textures.
Agreed on both points. While I've never been a fan of the Nintendo cheerleading from their fans, I'm equally against the trolling directed towards the system and company.
Also yeah, it would be a good strategy to position yourself as the second system. This way no matter which other system the gamer may own, they also own a Wii-U which would result in more systems sold overall in the end. Only problem with that is, that benefits Nintendo more than anyone else in gaming. Great for Nintendo, always want them to do well, but not so great for publishers, developers, or gamers.
AranhaHunter
Banned
If it doesn't matter then tell us what it is. They don't matter right? So just spill it.
I have never seen Axelay before and you may have just sold me on a Virtual Console copy.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
"There's going to be some geek out there who will screwdriver that processor out from the machine, run it through all the tests and compare it to Pentium 3 upwards and tell everybody how rubbish it is. Of course they will. That's great and I applaud people for doing such things. However, as a game designer that means absolutely nothing to me. The simple fact of the matter is, that's the box they're shipping, so we have to design and use that to the best of our abilities."
LOL!!!!
LOL!!!!
Zelda? You could easily be waiting three years too.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I'll buy the systems when I can afford them.
It's not like I'm choosey.
It's not like I'm choosey.
Dave is hung like a horse. John is hung like a squirrel. Guess who says 'size doesn't matter' the most.
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
Because they only were weaker compared to systems released much later and were still in the same ballpark.
They were affordable, they had the installed base, they had the software sales, they didn't have big hardware limitations and Sony had a bigger focus on third parties. With all that, aggressive pricing, a few extras (like the PSX using CDs and big brand recognition) and the advantage of having pretty much no competition for a year and a half, it's not surprising that most publishers used those two systems as the lead platform for the entire generation. And thanks to the big sales and lower development costs back then they also had a lot of exclusives, which just helped to strengthen their position in the market.
Sony forgot about all that at the beginning of this generation. It looks like they are slowly coming back to their senses, which explains where the PS3 is right now compared to where it was after the whole 599USD fiasco.
The Wii just couldn't act as the lowest common denominator like those systems did because the hardware differences were just too big, it didn't even use a similar controller, didn't have the same features (especially when it comes to online gaming) and after the N64 and the GC third parties had lost confidence in Nintendo's home consoles (and Nintendo's relationship with third parties didn't help either). It's a completely different situation.
It's a 1992 game and it "out-pretties" most 2D games being made today, in my opinion.
CaptNfantasy
Banned
I guess thats the difference between people with your mindset and mine. I care about art. I care about depth. I care about the artists behind the machine, not the power of the machine itself. When i play games i look for the things that the computer COULD NOT think of on its own that a human being had to create using imagination. Things like a realistic forest dont appeal to me because everyone knows what a realistic forest looks like and once the specs are high enough the damn computer can make one for you basically. For somebody to come up with a CoD scenario it takes zero effort creatively compared to what had to be brainstormed to bring Super Mario Bros 3 to life. Sales mean nothing to me. If the system in last place is the one with the gaming experiences i think are the most vibrant and creative then to me that system is the winner because thats what gaming has been since the dawn of gaming. I dont care about realistic rendering and polygons. I care about atmosphere and creativity. You dont need bleeding edge tech to accomplish this and anyone who thinks you do probably has never really created a damn thing in their life.
Btw, you might not want to hook your SD content that was built from the ground up to be hooked to an SD display to an HDTV and then blame the bad visuals on the original source content.
Chaplain
Member
They already are simpler when compared to the pc version.
I am going to assume that if current gen is having problems running Battlefield 3, it will get worse with Battlefield 4, 5, etc. By Battlefield 5 (2015), Wii U owners might not get a port of of the game because of not enough horsepower. Which goes against Iwata's statement, "The time when horsepower alone made all the difference is over."
So basically Nintendo just jumped the shark according to you?
When did I say I hate art?
The entire discussion was about whether graphics are important or not when selling a console.
My argument is they are. Though they aren't going to sell a console by themselves. You are the one that brought your nostalgic hipster elitism into the conversation trying to twist and turn my words into saying something they weren't.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
"1GB of RAM is available to games."
I thought it was going to be 2GB or something.
I thought it was going to be 2GB or something.
Yeah but by that same token Dave has an incentive to make sure everyone believes that size is the most important thing whether it is absolutely true or not. Now that you have raised this topic I am wondering if this explains the reason why Microsoft and Sony push powerful hardware. Perhaps they are trying to overcompensate?
I can't believe I have brought myself down to this level. Damn you Wii U threads!
I think Wii could have been a repackaged Dreamcast and it would have turned out pretty much the same. So, for selling a system graphics matter in the range of "it's not 25 years old hardware" more than in the range of "it's edge-cutting technology". In the end, games do matter the most and they're capable of selling very modest hardware.
If it makes you feel any better it was me that lowered the tone, you just joined me down here
I care about art as well. I almost tear up a bit when I see what current "HD" consoles do to the beautiful art meticulously crafted by talented individuals (nevermind the Wii).
ShockingAlberto
Member
There's half a sentence there that is important.
CaptNfantasy
Banned
I didnt say you hate art, that would make me an idiot. I said you dont seem to realize the power of artstyle if you believe only bleeding edge tech can produce great experiences.
The history of video gaming has proven that visuals do not matter most, they are secondary.
If you feel that snes is ass, you are missing out on alot of great stuff.
And yes, i feel Nintendo will always win, because they will always have games like zelda and mario and smash bros which majority of people wont pass up. People will most likely have a PC/WiiU, xbox720/WiiU, or a PS4/WiiU. Thats why nintendo will win in the end as always. Their strategy is perfectly fine.
Maybe initially it would of sold well but it's staying power and support would have dropped even faster I'd bet.
Also, IMO, wii caught lightning in a bottle with its gimmick, or feature set. My argument has always been that your feature set and games can overcome lower graphics if it's strong enough. Likewise if the graphics are a big enough leap and the games are there, like ps2, you can sell based on that.
You need all three, and to win you need the right combination at the right time IMO.
Except Nintendo hasn't won the home console wars outside of wii for a while now.
I never said not having bleeding edge cant create great experiences either. I asked why you seem to believe it automatically diminishes it though? And then gave several examples of graphically good looking games that also have innovative and great gameplay. Not to mention great art.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
"Indie developer Two Tribes caught the eye recently when it said its 2D platformer game Toki Tori 2 would run in full, native 1080p on Wii U. This is something only a handful of games on PS3 have managed, so backs up much of what we've been told about the graphics capabilities of Nintendo's hardware. But given that Nintendo's own Wii U games only run natively in 720p (from what we've seen so far), we were keen to get more information."
Jesus. That is some serious trolling by Eurogamer.
Jesus. That is some serious trolling by Eurogamer.
CaptNfantasy
Banned
Except thats not the way it works with humans. Its the guy with nothing in his pants that think what he owns will compensate for what he lacks. And that goes for everything with men, height etc.
phosphor112
Banned
Some people dont want to invest 300-350 for a nintendo box when all other games are available on other platforms.
This. Also, add price to the equation.
Chaplain
Member
It would be nice if a company like Dice or Crytek made a public statement about just how powerful the Wii U is when handling their engines, and if future engines will be able to run on Nintendo's hardware. But since Nintendo wants to, as Iwata put it, "I could give you our technical specs, as I know you'd like that, but I won't for a simple reason: they really don't matter. The time when horsepower alone made all the difference is over," there is no chance of this ever happening. Because if the truth was revealed, about just how powerful the system is, many buyers might not buy the Wii U (regardless if Nintendo makes great games or not), because they would see it as a system that will not be able to play future games.
Man, Wii's best sellers would have been no problem for Dreamcast. New Super Mario Bros. Wii? Mario Kart Wii? Wii Sports? Wii Fit? I'm pretty sure Dreamcast could handle stuff like that.
But you know what? I agree that Wii was extremely lucky and I personally don't see WiiU being nearly as successful. -Not- because of graphics (since powerful systems bomb too), but because of mass appeal. Even if a combination of elements is needed for a system's success, games are by far the most important one, because without games any other aspect about a system becomes irrelevant.
Mr. MondayNight
Member
No what I'm saying is that people yelling MOAR POWA!!!! don't take into account the amount of money it will cost, then when the price of video games goes up (such as from $50 to $60) they complain about having to pay a premium price for a product or about having to play sequels of the same game year after year with no new mechanics because people might not like it.
All in all more power leads to needing more sells which leads to less risks taken and more yearly franchises *cough* Final Fantasy *cough* we need to give developers room to succeed with a minimum sale point that's not a pipe dream (5 million sales for Dead Space anyone?)
lwilliams3
Member
It is rumored that the RAM available to games may have been increased to 1.5GB, with 512MB intially reserved to to other things. The dev kits total RAM was/is up to 3GB, with 1GB of that inaccessible.
How has that been proven, exactly? You're treating it like a binary choice - sacrificing some technical prowess for better gameplay. You use Super Metroid as an example, but it had fantastic graphics for its time and still managed great gameplay.
And N64/Gamecube era proved that Nintendo can't always win sales wise on its franchises alone.
Well, that's the thing, Wii U has and will have exclusive games, because it can do things differently.
phosphor112
Banned
This post is fantastic.
test_account
XP-39C²
Yeah, the Dreamcast have half the amount of system RAM compared to the PS2 for example. And i havnt seen any Dreamcast games that matches something like God of War. Even if the difference isnt huge, the Dreamcast had weaker hardware.
That whole "weak CPU" thing smells like bullshit to me. Of course it'll be clocked lower, as high clock speeds are a surefire way to burn way too much power and produce way too much heat for such a small device. But high clock speeds are also tied to longer pipelines - at the end of the day, there are routines that would be faster on a higher clocked, in-order CPU with a longer pipeline, and there are things that perform better on a lower clocked, out-of-order CPU with a shorter pipeline. We had the same thing in the PC space years ago with the Pentium 4.
So yes, the Wii U CPU is clocked lower and has the same number of cores as Xenon, probably the same number of SIMD units as well. Some floating point number crunching routines will be faster on Xbox360, and developers relying on those will run into problems with ports. But if the code needs to kill the pipeline every few cycles, the Wii U CPU would probably run circles around Xenon.
So yes, the Wii U CPU is clocked lower and has the same number of cores as Xenon, probably the same number of SIMD units as well. Some floating point number crunching routines will be faster on Xbox360, and developers relying on those will run into problems with ports. But if the code needs to kill the pipeline every few cycles, the Wii U CPU would probably run circles around Xenon.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Your last two paragraphs completely contradict your very next post. Your original statement was:
You're CLEARLY referencing the hardware's capabilities and how "most people expected this about Nintendo's hardware". Then you contradict yourself in the following post:
...about how "most people don't even know what the specs mean or what the Wii U is".
Which is it?
This is poetic
test_account
XP-39C²
It could be, but the arguement around this seems to be about that the weakest systems have a good chance of selling the most. I'm just pointing out that the Dreamcast was weaker, yet it didnt sell much. It is more of a coincidence how powerful a system is and how much it sells. If anything, a weaker system could mean a lower pricetag, but unless the game support is good, the lower pricetag doesnt matter that much.
Price as well. Definately price as well.
Console buyers seem to have price anchored consoles at a certain range; go over it and it stagnates or dies: ps3, 3do etc.
Gamers often say "well people pay 699 for an iPad." but that's not the way the human brain works. We associate a value to a given commodity and then judge it from there. The iPad had the benefit of being a new niche or new market, so no value was established til apple established it. Now most humans value an iPad type device around that price. Unfortunately(or fortunately) gaming consoles had their value established years ago around 250-399. Go over and people begin to hesitate.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Specs matter for a lot of things.
Specs probably do not matter to Nintendo.
How successful that ideology will be the fourth time it is tested in the last ten years is up to debate.
Specs probably do not matter to Nintendo.
How successful that ideology will be the fourth time it is tested in the last ten years is up to debate.