JordanN
Banned
Not sure what's there to be impressed. In motion, everything is Xbox 360 quality. Like RE5 or Ninja Gaiden 3.
-
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.
WiiU "Latte" GPU Die Photo - GPU Feature Set And Power Analysis
- Thread starter Thraktor
- Start date
- Status
Not sure what's there to be impressed. In motion, everything is Xbox 360 quality. Like RE5 or Ninja Gaiden 3.
ColdBlooder
Banned
Well no matter how awesome Nintendos games will look at E3. I expect this to be the exact response to it.
JordanN
Banned
Should have designed more powerful hardware. Or at least one that pulls off next gen with ease. @_@
Yup. As well as 'Its good for Wii U graphics' mirroring Wii sentiments last gen.
Give it up and get a gaming PC already
The_Intruder
Member
Placebo effect, be ready for it!
JordanN
Banned
Just did. @_@
That doesn't go without saying; if you don't want people calling your console last gen, design better hardware.
The ps4 is "last gen hardware" compared to my newest gaming box too, but you enjoy the platform for the games it has, not how many gigaflops its GPU can produce. If it doesn't live up to your expectations, write it off and get something more to your tastes. Showing up in threads about a box that you have very little interest in because of "shitty hardware" or what have you is counterproductive both to the thread itself and your own interests.
Please, show me some examples of this. I recall nothing in RE5 or NG3 that looked that detailed.
Reminds me of E3 2011 when Nintendo showed that game sizzle reel and everyone attacked it for looking worse than PS3/360 versions.
No, it´s not.
Yes it is. By orders of magnitude in both the CPU and GPU department. Unless you're going to do the whole "but 8gb of gddr5" thing, which is laughable at this point as a meme. Don't miss the point. You play games that each platform offers. Not specs.
JordanN
Banned
Character models and environment wouldn't look out of place in those games. Same goes for the lighting.
Actually, on the environments, a proper comparison can't be made since we don't know much about this game (if it's corridor or open world). The other games feature bigger worlds (compared to the teaser).
Edit: I'm trying to find direct feeds of the lava scene in RE5 since that's what I think the game most resembles.
ColdBlooder
Banned
In your opinion, it is not. Im cool with that.
But my opinion differs on that matter. But im playing games, not gflops/ghz.
DreadPirateRoberts
Member
Never change Jordan, never change.
No, it´s not. The PS4 is able to produce graphics that are on par with todays high end PCs.
And yes, i play specs, specs are a huge part of what is going on on my TV.
Jokes on them, because that footage was actually ps3/360 footage
Yeah everyone's reaction after it was confirmed PS3/360 footage was funny.
tkscz
Member
If it wasn't for that last line I would've put the second paragraph there into question.
That has nothing to do with opinion. There simply are no PCs out there that are able to produce graphics that are a generation ahead of the PS4.
Lets revisit this when PS4 releases. It won't take long.
JordanN
Banned
Someone claimed certain footage was impressive (or next gen), I disagree. I'm within my right to be skeptical.
Edit: The rest of your post seems like you have an axe to grind since you bring up "enjoyment" and "gigaflops" when I made no mention to either.
An order of magnitude is 10x. Orders of magnitude would be at least 20x.
Glorified G
Member
The whole comparison is stupid anyway. Comparing a console specifically designed to take advantage of a closed platform and optimization vs an open platform with no optimization using off the shelf pc parts. The architecture is completely different.
And it's hilarious the fact you just cherry pick which what you want to be compared. "Oh just forget the ram situation, it's just a meme at this point!"
That trailer is demonstrating respectable amounts of detail in some respects, though I'm really not sure why everyone is so worked up about the lighting.
Looks like fairly standard current-gen salad of hazy not-very-H DR bloom,
And nothing about the lighting model immediately stands out as all that special.
The lighting's good, but to my eyes it doesn't look all that far elevated above what PS360 are frequently told to do.
Looks like fairly standard current-gen salad of hazy not-very-H DR bloom,
heavy low-quality AO causing tons of weird black halos,
oddly-projected shadows,
and plenty of shimmering with things like face shading.
And nothing about the lighting model immediately stands out as all that special.
The lighting's good, but to my eyes it doesn't look all that far elevated above what PS360 are frequently told to do.
Actually, since it's handled exponentially, "orders of magnitude" should be 100x, by the 1 order=10x standard.
That's an opinion, not a fact. Processing power which greatly eclipses any upcoming console and the ability to use it is available now. Maybe the word "orders of magnitude" is overstating it if you define that as "10x" but hardware that is multiples over any upcoming console is available to those that want it.
Lol oh look, console optimization reared its head above too. Don't you people just play games?
Axe to grind? Lol. I will likely be purchasing a ps4 at launch, providing there is worthwhile first party content. You missed the point entirely. You play games that are available on the console, not specs. If the games interest you, you enjoy them. If the console doesn't interest you, because of "shit hardware", you're wasting your time by constantly talking about it. The ps4 was brought up as an example because it will be "shit hardware" in comparison to my newest rig as well, however if I want to play the content only available on the ps4 the hardware inside won't mean anything at all. It is a means to an end. It is just a box with an hdmi cable coming out of it that gives you the ability to consume its content and services. If you have zero interest in consuming said content because it doesn't fit with your needs (ie your own constant axe to grind about nintendo's hardware choices) why waste your time?
This thread is for people that are interested in deconstructing this console's GPU and it's associated capabilities. Seeing your postings over the last few months, this console is obviously not for you.
It's more of an opinion though, I know people that said the PS4 footage that was shown looked like an overclocked PS3, that's their opinion though.
In my opinion as well, that fire scene looks next gen, not everyone will agree, and I'm fine with that.
Refreshment.01
Member
I don't think anyone with a finger of sense is questioning that the company will show of some games with pleasing visuals. Nintendo always come up with fine looking games, some of the Wii ones still looks fantastic even some of the GC stuff does. Just like there are good looking stuff in PS2 level hardware or in cuarrent gen ones.
Some people feel unsatisifed because they gimped the hardware more than they should because some questionable desicions and by the time the nice looking Wii U stuff comes around, the competiton will show stuff that'll look even better. SO the year head start was wasted. That's in a nutshell "the problem" in the eyes of some people.
Must be a pc built with alien technology. I hear it's powered by moon magic.
lwilliams3
Member
StevenP was specifically talking about the actual specs of the CPU and GPU. The High-end PCs are well beyond that. You are talking about the visuals, which is highly subjective in any case.
Lets revisit this when PS4 releases. It won't take long.
Oh boy...
Impressive and "next-gen" does not have to mean the same thing, especially with how far visuals have improved during the last gen of consoles.
JordanN
Banned
That was an opinion? Looked more like he/she was making a statement.
"Now we have some new fodder for the lighting."
"That definitely looks next gen to me for those who keep trying to denounce the next gen capabilities of the GPU. "
"Now to wait for people to come up with every angle they can to dismiss it."
The last sentence even looked like an invitation to disagree/agree with the above.
I hope you are not being serious.
The characters do not even come close in the magnitude of detail without even getting into effects and the environment. The characters in NG3 and RE5 look so blocky and washed out compared to this. Just look at their shoulders, fingers, and hair. Also, most of the clothing detail is flat/drawn on. They lack facial definition or any intricate definition for that matter.
Nothing you posted matches what I posted.
JordanN
Banned
Upon closer inspection, there's nothing next gen about those models. Polycount, textures, shaders (normals/speculars/diffuse) all seem in line with what Xbox 360 could do.
The Wii could and did all of those things you listed as well, I believe even the Gamecube did. Using that logic, I guess the GC is on the same level as the PS3 and 360.
You are completely excluding all details an ignoring scale to make that statement.
As far as polygon count goes, if 360/PS3 character normally had geometry like that, then those screenshots you posted completely failed to demonstrate it.
prag16
Banned
The character models definitely look like Unity.
There's nothing mind blowing there, but a clear step up from the PS360 norm. If it is Wii U footage (not holding my breath) that bodes well for future ground-up games.
Schnozberry
Member
Well, I guess the game is total shit then. Why even bother playing it?
JordanN
Banned
They can't do normal maps, high res textures, polycount at the same level of PS3/360.
I don't think they can do normal maps period. They only had bump mapping akin to DX7.
Indeed.
Current-gen games with prettier effects/better textures, which I'm fine with.
It's the particles of the lava shots which intrigue me, if this truly is Wii U footage.
JordanN
Banned
The game isn't winning any graphical awards. Just hope the gameplay can grab people's attention.
We use binary base here.
The GC did normal mapping in Rogue Leader and that was a release game. The Wii used Normal Mapping in many games, Super Mario Galaxy being one of them. Also, anything that can output at 480p outputting at high res. You are probably talking about high def, but notice that now you are getting into details. Something you avoided doing when comparing the shots of the actual game we were original discussing.
You changed arguments.
JordanN
Banned
Both were bump maps.
You're not seeing normal maps on par with programmable shaders. GC/Wii do not support them.
No, they were confirmed Normal Maps. People who modded Mario Galaxy had it categorized what was using which effect.
http://tcrf.net/Super_Mario_Galaxy/Early_Objects
Dewey's Adventure for the Wii was advertized as using normal mapping by the devs themselves.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/02/01/dewys-adventure-interview
There was also Gladiator A.D. This game used aboslutely nothing but normal maps. It was pretty much a normal map tech demo for the Wii.
There are many games for the Wii that use normal mapping.
The Wii could even do parallax mapping if someone actually made effort and programmed the TEV do it.
(and now, confronted with those contradictions, you disappear).
Cow Mengde
Banned
Both of you are wrong. Wii definitely did normal mapping in a few titles. Super Mario Galaxy is NOT one of them. It uses environment map bump mapping.
High Voltage said they did normal mapping on the Wii the same way they did it on the high end consoles.
Someone also ported homebrew Quake or something to Wii with normal mapping.
It's like people all of a sudden getting excited over "Ray-Tracing" on PS4 when it's actually doing stuff most 3D consoles could do.
No, you are wrong. There are many objects that have been confirmed to use normal mapping in Super Mario Galaxy.
http://tcrf.net/Super_Mario_Galaxy
http://tcrf.net/Super_Mario_Galaxy/Early_Objects
http://tcrf.net/Super_Mario_Galaxy/Unused_Planets
Since the first page. There are a lot of people who don't want the Wii U to be acknowledge as next gen for some reason and will go out of their way to deny any advancement over the last gen consoles demonstrated on it.
Digital Foundry certainly didn't help with that rushed, fictitious write up they did for the Wii U GPU based on the early info in this thread(where they state, and I quote "we can now, categorically, finally rule out any next-gen pretensions for the Wii U") that they refuse to update or correct in anyway. Every time I see someone start talking about Wii U features outside of this forum, someone links/quotes that article like it is the absolute, 100%, undisputed, unquestionable fact of reality and limit of the Wii U GPU capability.
I wish someone would do another write up that with the information we have now so we can put and end to this.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
What PS4 game have you played? And what High end PC graphics are you saying? cause i've seen High end PC graphics so real with a resolution so large 3 PS4s couldn't run them.
lwilliams3
Member
Perhaps the better way to phrase it is that the Wii's GPU did not support normal maps. It did support EMBM, which can look similar, but the effect is more limited when you view the effect of the object from a different angle. Mario Galaxy used a lot of EMBM, and it benefit from having an auto-cam so you would not normally see the effect break. This is why the game may not look as well when you're using free view.
The Wii's lack of modern shader support was likely a bigger barrier to making downports from the other systems than the power was. The Wii U doesn't have that issue.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll