Thunder Monkey
Banned
LINKS, LINKS I SAY. I want to see this.
I'm just making a jokes.
Kage is good people, so is you from my experience. So lets just be bros instead of argumentarians.
I use english good?
LINKS, LINKS I SAY. I want to see this.
This assumes an evolutionary leap in console graphics with the next go-around, doesn't it?
I'm just making a jokes.
Kage is good people, so is you from my experience. So lets just be bros instead of argumentarians.
I use english good?
The Burnout games ran better on PS2. The Xbox lost out on the particle effects.
I think it's hard to argue next gen Playstation and Xbox aren't going to be significant leaps over this generation.
Next to the latest PCs, they aren't going to be as powerful as past generations, but due to Moore's Law and the amount of time that will have passed since last generation began, 8 years for MS, 7 years for Sony, assuming 2013 launch date, means the next gen systems will seem like just as large of increase as any other new console generation in history. There are people that like to tout the fact that the companies can't release powerful systems again without going bankrupt. But like I said, they aren't going to seem as powerful next go a new PC as in the past, but they are going to blow away this generation. And IF Wii-U's graphics chip is only 1.5x the performance of this generation, I have a very difficult time seeing it competing graphically.
I don't understand where all this Wii U negativity(concerning it's capabilities) is coming from. Sure, there were no high-production-value games that just completely blew this current gen out of the water, but that's to be expected from low-risk launch games. Given what we've been shown, there are at least some "hints" as to what having more modern tech can offer, regardless of it's overall brute power.
To me, it's baffling that others can't see those "hints". Even some of the very simpliest of Wii U games display an image quality and rendering ability that I just don't see in PS360 games. I'm not talking size & scope of the games and their overall "wow" factor. I'm referring to things like: colors more vibrant, distant textures more visible, lighting more natural, way better transparencies, much higher quality DOF and motion blur - things that naturally evolve due to more modern tech.
I don't know about you guys, but that's something that immediately stood out for me(ie: IQ/rendering capability), and that has me excited to see what will happen when developer combine that rendering capability with higher production value. I expect to be impressed by Wii U along the way, regardless of where it sits on a paper-spec-chart.
Why did PS2 ports on Xbox always run and look better? Shouldn't it be that way for 360 to Wii U?
Exocet MGS2.
The interesting thing is that on paper, they're not. In fact, both Cell and Xenon are still really god damn fast. On paper. Like, Core i7 Extreme levels of fast. We all know it's bullshit by now, but we don't know what figures that Ubisoft dude use when comparing the Wii U to those two engineering duds.There is no way the CPU is just as powerful as the PS360's CPUs, they are dreadfully slow by today's standards.
Competing graphically will definitely mean different things going forward than it use to.I think it's hard to argue next gen Playstation and Xbox aren't going to be significant leaps over this generation.
Next to the latest PCs, they aren't going to be as powerful as past generations, but due to Moore's Law and the amount of time that will have passed since last generation began, 8 years for MS, 7 years for Sony, assuming 2013 launch date, means the next gen systems will seem like just as large of increase as any other new console generation in history. There are people that like to tout the fact that the companies can't release powerful systems again without going bankrupt. But like I said, they aren't going to seem as powerful next go a new PC as in the past, but they are going to blow away this generation. And IF Wii-U's graphics chip is only 1.5x the performance of this generation, I have a very difficult time seeing it competing graphically.
I'm not all that worried about Wii U, I think it will probably get more support than the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube got from third parties. Nintendo games will still have to be the main draw and I'm certain 3D Mario and Zelda will look incredible, not to mention whatever Retro has in store for us.
It's not hard to get more support than the N54, but GCN had some fairly wide (if not late to the party) support from 3rd parties in it's early days.Nintendo would be jumping for joy if this happened, but it's not going to happen so don't get your hopes up.
Revisionist.
The games that ran better on the original Xbox were MADE for the original Xbox and ported elsewhere by budget teams. Why did the Gamecube versions of Splinter Cell run worse on the GCN that the PS2? Conversely, why did the GCN version of Beyond Good and Evil run better than the the PS2 version?
It all comes down to how the game was developed. Was it hastily ported? Or was it built with the hardware-strengths in mind? You aren't a stupid person. You know this. Stop.
The interesting thing is that on paper, they're not. In fact, both Cell and Xenon are still really god damn fast. On paper. Like, Core i7 Extreme levels of fast. We all know it's bullshit by now, but we don't know what figures that Ubisoft dude use when comparing the Wii U to those two engineering duds.
Blah Blah BlahYes, really. You do realize that if Nintendo put some of their IPs on other platforms (Orbis, Durango, iOS, Android, etc) that they would make billions, right? Mario, Pokemon, Donkey Kong, Metroid? Those would sell hundreds of millions of units across all platforms and Nintendo wouldn't be burdened with having to sink money into R&D or manufacturing on hardware. They could just focus on their games since hardware clearly isn't their strong suit anymore. And that, in and of itself, would benefit gamers across the world.
Revisionist.
The games that ran better on the original Xbox were MADE for the original Xbox and ported elsewhere by budget teams. Why did the Gamecube versions of Splinter Cell run worse on the GCN that the PS2? Conversely, why did the GCN version of Beyond Good and Evil run better than the the PS2 version?
It all comes down to how the game was developed. Was it hastily ported? Or was it built with the hardware-strengths in mind? You aren't a stupid person. You know this. Stop.
Revisionist.
The games that ran better on the original Xbox were MADE for the original Xbox and ported elsewhere by budget teams. Why did the Gamecube versions of Splinter Cell run worse on the GCN that the PS2? Conversely, why did the GCN version of Beyond Good and Evil run better than the the PS2 version?
It all comes down to how the game was developed. Was it hastily ported? Or was it built with the hardware-strengths in mind? You aren't a stupid person. You know this. Stop.
Blah Blah Blah
The only acceptable answer.
I wonder if at the next Xbox E3 unveiling people will be having a similar discussion? WatchDogs 360 looks equal or worse than the 720 version.I wonder how many people will read this.
*Looks at IdeaMan's post again*
I accepted the console virtues and downfalls since that case and controller was revealed a year ago. I don't understand why some people refuse to do so. It's like when Wii fans held on to that secret ace in the hole from Nintendo or how "cube" mapping will show the true capabilities of the Wii system.The moment I played Soul Caliber on Dreamcast launch day just blew me away. I felt the impact immediately. There is no way this could have been done on the PS1 or N64. What a leap I thought.
Graphically speaking the Wii and now the WiiU never made me feel this way. I have never once thought, "There is no way this can't be done on Xbox360 (visually)"
Don't you miss having that sort of impact from the big N? Can't do shit about it though.
Even if that was the case, why then not render Assassins III and Arkham City at higher resolution or with better IQ? If there's a tesselating unit in WiiU, why don't port from the PC in which the feature is implemented? There are some kinks to work on, i understand that but software will look comparable to this generations offerings in complexity, that's the reality. So this type of disscussion regarding WiiU should die already.Actually that could very well be the scenario. Again, the WiiU's CPU and GPU has elements that put it well above this gen, but with ports, those elements go COMPLETELY unused, and instead devs try using the WiiU the way they used the 360/PS3, which , iirc, has bottlenecking issues. This would force the WiiU's CPU to be used on more than what it should be use on, the GPU to go unused, and the most of the RAM to be ignored, making the game run worse than it would on the 360/PS3.
Eventually someone will open it up and inspect all the parts. Then perhaps we can finally put all speculation to rest.This could be avoided if nintendo released the offical specs....but i guess thats too much to ask for.
Is this really too much to ask?
That's correct, but Nintendo built the WiiU wisely if you think about it. By having so much hardware take the pressure of the CPU, it's CPU can process a lot more than this gen, but probably not as much as the other next gen consoles, so the physics will come down. Draw distance will be lowered due to less RAM and there are other factors. My point is that it will be much easier thanks to better shader ability.
You're correct, I don't have 100% idea of what I"m saying, just going off of what I know and what I hear. Being an ass is no way to answer this.
Has Nintendo ever released their console's specs? I don't remember them doing it on the Wii and not on the 3DS either.
What I don't understand is, all the third party games Nintendo is releasing is a sequel and not the original title, why would wii owners buy that version if they haven't played the other ones? Why would I buy ME3, AC3, Darksiders 2 on the wii u if I can buy it on 360 and PS3. A smarter thing would have been to at least release darksiders 1 and 2 on the Wii U, heck they could even bundle both games. I understand they can't release ME1 on the Wii U but why not ME2? AC is a little bit harder though since there are so many titles but at least they should have released a bundle of AC1 and AC2 on the Wii U.
No idea. Is he? The OP only said it was an "employee", not elaborating on what exactly he does or what his background is.Wait what? The guy who said this, isn't he one of the engineering dudes?
I wonder if at the next Xbox E3 unveiling people will be having a similar discussion? WatchDogs 360 looks equal or worse than the 720 version.
I accepted the console virtues and downfalls since that case and controller was revealed a year ago. I don't understand why some people refuse to do so. It's like when Wii fans held on to that secret ace in the hole from Nintendo or how "cube" mapping will show the true capabilities of the Wii system.
Even if that was the case, why then not render Assassins III and Arkham City at higher resolution or with better IQ? If there's a tesselating unit in WiiU, why don't port from the PC in which the feature is implemented? There are some kinks to work on, i understand that.
No idea. Is he? The OP only said it was an "employee", not elaborating on what exactly he does or what his background is.
It's not hard to get more support than the N54, but GCN had some fairly wide (if not late to the party) support from 3rd parties in it's early days.
Who is to say they won't? Just because they didn't reveal it at E3 automatically means they won't exist? You do realize how many HD remakes we have scene this gen right? dind't GoW 1 and 2 HD come out after GoW3?
Eventually someone will open it up and inspect all the parts. Then perhaps we can finally put all speculation to rest.
That's not Kage being an ass.
Kage can show you being an ass, but right now he's being polite.
With that RAM amount texturing will be better than PS3/360 if they made better textures or take the time to use them. There's no question on that.
The interesting thing is that on paper, they're not. In fact, both Cell and Xenon are still really god damn fast. On paper. Like, Core i7 Extreme levels of fast. We all know it's bullshit by now, but we don't know what figures that Ubisoft dude use when comparing the Wii U to those two engineering duds.
This is a gross over-simplification of the challenges they may face.
Though I do agree that porting to the Wii-U will be easier than it was to port from the PS360 to the Wii. Not just because of better shader ability but also the architecture of the system itself.
I'm sorry but I don't think you have 50% of an idea what you're saying, what you're doing is trying to repeat what others have said without proper comprehension over what you're talking about.
I'm not trying to be an ass, but I try not to talk about things that are outside the boundaries of my understanding.
What? no... if the WiiU system was substantially more powerful than current consoles once that port is running it doesn't take more time or money to get that at 1080p. The defacto excuse is that it takes time learning the new hardware's intricacies but i think, in my very limited knowledge btw, that it is not the case here. No way, WiiU architecture is that exotic. If by now, we don't have Batman or Assassin's running at 1080p/60 FPS is because the system can't handle that level of performance.Time, money. To port a better version/up-port the game, the companies would need a new team that would take the time to port the game using the WiiU's advantages. That would take a pretty penny to do. To straight port the console version of the game, wouldn't necessarily NEED another team. They also wouldn't need to use every advantage of the WiiU, just port it over best they care, as fast as they care, as cheaply as they can.
How could NDA's work for something like this? I find it both amazing and puzzling that something like this hasn't leaked already. The console and games are officially revealed. Are you telling me Sony and MS higher ups don't know what's under WiiU hood?NDAs
What? no... if the WiiU system was substantially more powerful than current consoles once that port is running it doesn't take more time or money to get that at 1080p. The defacto excuse is that it takes time learning the new hardware's intricacies but i think, in my very limited knowledge btw, that it is not the case here. No way, WiiU architecture is that exotic. If by now, we don't have Batman or Assassin's running at 1080p/60 FPS is because the system can't handle that level of performance.
And i sincerely wish i was wrong, believe me tkscz
How could NDA's work for something like this? I find it both amazing and puzzling that something like this hasn't leaked already. The console and games are officially revealed. Are you telling me Sony and MS higher ups don't know what's under WiiU hood?
I think it's hard to argue next gen Playstation and Xbox aren't going to be significant leaps over this generation.
Next to the latest PCs, they aren't going to be as powerful as past generations, but due to Moore's Law and the amount of time that will have passed since last generation began, 8 years for MS, 7 years for Sony, assuming 2013 launch date, means the next gen systems will seem like just as large of increase as any other new console generation in history. There are people that like to tout the fact that the companies can't release powerful systems again without going bankrupt. But like I said, they aren't going to seem as powerful next go a new PC as in the past, but they are going to blow away this generation. And IF Wii-U's graphics chip is only 1.5x the performance of this generation, I have a very difficult time seeing it competing graphically.
Look at what Santa Monica / Naughty Dog have done with the presumably weaker, and more difficult to program PS3.
It defeats the purpose if you release it after the latest game. By the time the bundle comes out, a lot of people's hype will die down. It's as easy as releasing it at the same time, bundle it up and sell it for $30-40
Also, don't compare it to GOW. Wii owners had no way of playing AC on the Wii, while Playstation owners did (with GOW). 1. Original launch PS3 was backwards compatible with PS2 games and 2. a lot of people who bought a PS3 had PS2s, which the GOW series is from. Wii doesn't have an AC, so those wii owners who buy Wii U have no way of playing it, so why even buy AC3? a game that focuses a lot on the story.
There are ways for games to avoid story lockout, like a good summary. Ultimately, ubisoft may also decide to port over ac I/II as well.
I don't think anyone realistically saw Wii U competing graphically. I think what most reasonable people were expecting was a system that could handle the future generation of games at low settings, similar to turning the settings down on an older PC.
Something similar to PS2 vs Xbox in terms of power.
I don't think anyone realistically saw Wii U competing graphically. I think what most reasonable people were expecting was a system that could handle the future generation of games at low settings, similar to turning the settings down on an older PC.
Something similar to PS2 vs Xbox in terms of power.
i think that sort of power differential is VERY unlikely. that is incredibly optimistic. we're looking at something more like 3DS to Vita more likely, I would guess, where similarly featured hardware somewhat covers up a lot of the gap in power... but where the gap is sizeable.
Ok, let's assume that is true for a second. Why would be the incentive to buy the WiiU? Wouldn't then PS3 and Xbox360, very cheap systems by that time, be getting ports also? Only big road block i could see is in regards to memory constraints since WiiU could have double amount of RAM.I don't think anyone realistically saw Wii U competing graphically. I think what most reasonable people were expecting was a system that could handle the future generation of games at low settings, similar to turning the settings down on an older PC.
Something similar to PS2 vs Xbox in terms of power.
Where the line is drawn for a port of a Xbox Next or PS4 game be possible on a WiiU and not on a 360?