That's the thing, though. We know Wii U isn't miles ahead of its last-gen competitors, so things like higher resolution, or drastically better fidelity like the kind we saw jumping from Xbox to Xbox 360 is not really in the books.
Besides, a ~4770 esque GPU in a console is actually a pretty big step-up from Xenos. Not anything like an underclocked 7970M, but I digress.
Also, neither Durango nor Orbis appear to be "monsters", with their netbook CPUs and notebook GPUs. Sure, the numbers are big, but what's behind those numbers isn't really all that impressive. I still don't see another Wii situation - at least not on a pure performance level.
Not everyday you see a piece of hardware that has had this much fussing tossed about to try and defend or sell it. Any way you cut it, the thing was weak for a console in 2012, just imagine how it'll be in 2015.
The games always tell the true story.
Wiiu is just a really weak hardware for 2012.
you will probably never see games that match the best on ps360.
What? Compare WiiU launch games to 360/ps3 launch games and you will see that WiiU already looks better at this stage of its life. You can't make these kind of assumptions this soon especially when they're based on rushed/bad ports and early software.
He's saying you should judge a console solely by it's launch lineup because King Kong is the best looking 360 game ever made.
I don't get this line of thinking. Do you think it's due to developer talent? Budget? Or do you suggest that the hardware isn't capable of keeping up with PS360?
Are you for real?
This was a launch title and yet it looked better than anything we have seen before it was a real next gen game, and IMO nothing on the wii u so fr looks better than it.
Thermodynamics alone make another Wii situation quite unlikely. What Microsoft and Sony did last gen was insane, they pushed the hardware beyond what's possible based on improved technology alone by also increasing die sizes and power consumption considerably. That's not really practicable anymore - and looking at the financial reports, one might argue that it didn't make sense back then, either.It depends on the day of the week, the source (website), and even who is posting the info... I think we don't know all about next gen machines yet.
Are you for real?
This was a launch title and yet it looked better than anything we have seen before it was a real next gen game, and IMO nothing on the wii u so far looks better than it.
Thermodynamics alone make another Wii situation quite unlikely. What Microsoft and Sony did last gen was insane, they pushed the hardware beyond what's possible based on improved technology alone by also increasing die sizes and power consumption considerably. That's not really practicable anymore - and looking at the financial reports, one might argue that it didn't make sense back then, either.
So your saying PGR3 looks better than late gen multi platform PS360 titles then?
well wiiu is not exotic in anyway. Neither is current gen development in general. There is no learning curve to speak of. The sort of graphical advancements we saw this generations is not going to happen with the wiiu.
And it is pretty obvious that the gap between wiiu and ps360 is very very narrow. Much more narrow than say ps2 and xbox.
And i dont see development with the budgets and talents the best of the best had on ps360.
If you dont have the talent, the money or the hardware, i just dont see games outshining the best from this gen.
Considering the WiiU's launch titles are late gen multiplatform PS360 titles
Your saying PGR3 an early gen title looks better than late gen multi platform PS360 titles then?
Taking into account that Need For Speed Most Wanted is one of those titles, your saying PGR3 looks better than NFSMW?
And 2005 tech is more advanced than 1999 tech. There's an envelope due to technological progress alone, but Sony and Microsoft didn't stay within that envelope, they pushed it further by not only using more modern tech, but also increasing complexity, BoM and power consumption. That isn't feasible anymore.But today tech (manufacturing tech and so) is more advanced than 2005 tech.
Um, direct feed screens?But today tech (manufacturing tech and so) is more advanced than 2005 tech.
Aside resolution, PGR3 looks really great today:
http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/pgr3/box7.jpg
http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/pgr3/box8.jpg
Um, direct feed screens?
You can't counter the argument that Wii U launch games are late gen 360 games. Or are you Implying that graphics didn't improve for 360 since 2005?
nah the point is that 360 launch titles were clearly superior to whatever was on the PS2/GCN/Xbox, the 360 showed a proper next gen leap at launch. The Wii U did not.
nah the point is that 360 launch titles were clearly superior to whatever was on the PS2/GCN/Xbox, the 360 showed a proper next gen leap at launch. The Wii U did not.
RAM size alone is a significant difference. The fact that no multipat game is using it should tell you something.well you cant expect any such leap with the wiiu.
If there will be any leap at all. Most of it is already learnt since its not hardware specific.
RAM size alone is a significant difference. The fact that no multipat game is using it should tell you something.
its also very slow ram.
I don't get this line of thinking. Do you think it's due to developer talent? Budget? Or do you suggest that the hardware isn't capable of keeping up with PS360?
its also very slow ram.
The key thing here though. Is that there will be no huge leaps on the wiiu.
Its not like when 360 was released and they had to come to grips with multiple core development.
I don't get this line of thinking. Do you think it's due to developer talent? Budget? Or do you suggest that the hardware isn't capable of keeping up with PS360?
AndyH, here in NeoGAF:
Nice posts.And 2005 tech is more advanced than 1999 tech. There's an envelope due to technological progress alone, but Sony and Microsoft didn't stay within that envelope, they pushed it further by not only using more modern tech, but also increasing complexity, BoM and power consumption. That isn't feasible anymore.
The "brilliance" of Nintendo is that it's not fighting with Sony and Microsoft. Well, it is, but not the battle that they want. It's taking the gamble (which didn't seem like a gamble until they completely botched the marketing) that people would want at most only two gaming systems next gen (at least for a while). Microsoft and Sony are fighting amongst themselves for the same piece of the pie- high powered games. Nintendo also wants HD, but they don't want to spend a lot of money investing in system just to get 1/3rd of the pie. They're happier with ~100% of the "other gaming experiences" pie and then whatever stragglers they get. IMO, they're betting that either Microsoft or Sony will "lose" next gen and be forced out of the market. While there's a big difference in graphical power (so to speak) between the WiiU and the other systems coming out, they'll both be outputting in HD. Games will have more effects and look a little better on the newer systems, but not several factors better.
I think that they're well positioned to attract developers that don't want to invest in next gen development yet. Or maybe they can get indie developers or smaller studios. There's even the possibility that they can attract new IPs from companies who have ideas but want to minimize the risk by having a lower budget. The problem with that is that companies could've tried that with the Wii and that most didn't. Those that did weren't met with a lot of success. There are several reasons for that, but the reasons don't really matter when developers are left with a bad taste in their mouth.
Good things CAN happen with the WiiU, but we'll see if they will. If developers grow some balls and make a great game with great marketing that makes great use of the unique features of the WiiU, I have a feeling it'll be a success. If they half ass any of those things, the game better catch on like fire because otherwise it'll bomb.
The "brilliance" of Nintendo is that it's not fighting with Sony and Microsoft. Well, it is, but not the battle that they want. It's taking the gamble (which didn't seem like a gamble until they completely botched the marketing) that people would want at most only two gaming systems next gen (at least for a while). Microsoft and Sony are fighting amongst themselves for the same piece of the pie- high powered games. Nintendo also wants HD, but they don't want to spend a lot of money investing in system just to get 1/3rd of the pie. They're happier with ~100% of the "other gaming experiences" pie and then whatever stragglers they get. IMO, they're betting that either Microsoft or Sony will "lose" next gen and be forced out of the market. While there's a big difference in graphical power (so to speak) between the WiiU and the other systems coming out, they'll both be outputting in HD. Games will have more effects and look a little better on the newer systems, but not several factors better.
I think that they're well positioned to attract developers that don't want to invest in next gen development yet. Or maybe they can get indie developers or smaller studios. There's even the possibility that they can attract new IPs from companies who have ideas but want to minimize the risk by having a lower budget. The problem with that is that companies could've tried that with the Wii and that most didn't. Those that did weren't met with a lot of success. There are several reasons for that, but the reasons don't really matter when developers are left with a bad taste in their mouth.
Good things CAN happen with the WiiU, but we'll see if they will. If developers grow some balls and make a great game with great marketing that makes great use of the unique features of the WiiU, I have a feeling it'll be a success. If they half ass any of those things, the game better catch on like fire because otherwise it'll bomb.
Um, direct feed screens?
You can't counter the argument that Wii U launch games are late gen 360 games. Or are you Implying that graphics didn't improve for 360 since 2005?
There's leaps on every system, even "withered technology" like the Wii or every single Nintendo handheld. Rushed Wii U launch ports already seem to be turning out a whole lot better than PS3's rushed launch ports did back in 2006/2007, just look how quick UE3 stability progressed on each platform. Some of that's likely due to the more straightforward architecture, some due to general developer versatility/knowledge but it also bodes well for the system capability off the bat. Things can improve from the technology end pretty clearly, it's really the business end that we need to worry about.its also very slow ram.
The key thing here though. Is that there will be no huge leaps on the wiiu.
Its not like when 360 was released and they had to come to grips with multiple core development.
There's leaps on every system, even "withered technology" like the Wii or every single Nintendo handheld. Rushed Wii U launch ports already seem to be turning out a whole lot better than PS3's rushed launch ports did back in 2006/2007, just look how quick UE3 stability progressed on each platform. Some of that's likely due to the more straightforward architecture, some due to general developer versatility/knowledge but it also bodes well for the system capability off the bat. Things can improve from the technology end pretty clearly, it's really the business end that we need to worry about.
As far as the "slow RAM", it seems to be the result of a much more efficient memory architecture allowing Nintendo to go with more economical parts they can maximize performance out of. A bit like Gamecube vs Xbox, taken in isolation the parts in the Xbox blew away GC on paper, but thanks to system balance and efficiency GC ended up being competitive in real world performance. I think given so far we've had a grand total of zero complaints from developers about memory latency, and in fact we've heard nothing but the opposite from (both named and anonymous) devs complimenting Wii U's memory really, DDR3-gate is undoubtedly a total nonissue. Now the CPU on the other hand...
I don't like this idea that some people have where whenever "GPGPU capabilities" or "eDRAM" are mentioned, somehow the entire post is discredited. Granted, there are people who know nothing about it, and actually do believe that these are somehow "magical saviors", but the terms themselves lend some credence, and don't deserve to be the butt of many of these overused jokes (bad ones, at that). I'm not referring to your post specifically, but just as a general thought.
Also, why the B3D worship I see from some people? B3D is just another forum; not some ultra-secretive tech cult. Many people there are also wrong about certain things, and many others just share their opinions. I see it as a more tech-focused GAF.
The Gamecube featured eDRAM, something we've seen the Xbox 360, Wii, and now Wii U feature. Its IBM PPC Gekko CPU featured double the cache of the Xbox's Intel CPU, and from all accounts despite being clocked almost half that of the Xbox's CPU it was superior in many ways. Its memory was arguarbly the best of that generation with its 1T-SRAM providing high bandwidth and low latency. The Gamecube still had less RAM then the Xbox, but due to its higher bandwidth and lower latency along with some fantastic texture compression tech from ATi the Gamecube was if anything superior in this regard. The Cube's bus configuration betwen memory, GPU, CPU, was incredibly efficient.
Nice posts.
I too can't imagine that ps460s will do any better graphically than PCs available at launch. Not just because of your points, and that they want to compete with WiiU on price, and they want to do it without huge losses. It's also because while they have had to rely on graphics to take market share from Nintendo over the last decade, now they have more great games and an audience ready for them.
Nintendo chose to seek a blue ocean because they had the software and R&D advantage and hardware was getting huge and hot and expensive. The others had no choice but to invest in graphics because they knew much less about games and they had a tech advantage.
Nintendo invested in games and hardware to support new game types, a risky business move even when software is your specialty because your competitors have dozens of bullet points against you and you have no guarantee people will enjoy your work. In the end, Nintendo delivered the fun and expanded an audience one way just in time before Apple and before HD, and the others expanded an audience another way just before Nintendo powered up.
Now Sony and MS have games that are reaching Mario and Link levels of popularity, and they have more of them. They have enormous marketing budgets supporting a seasoned staff, and a whole new culture of fans, and while Nintendo is my favorite software company, there is now something out there that I don't want to miss out on. Even if it's just the occasional Journey or the next Uncharted.
It feels like Sony and MS have been spending loads of money just to get some gaming legitimacy and have now evened out the playing field just as Apple starts poking around, happy to see them and Nintendo fighting amongst themselves. Games and gaming is going through a major evolution, and while the media may still be the message, the variety and sophistication of the content is making the system wars worth fighting.
TL;DR: Gaming is leveling up. Power advantages are becoming less important. Why am I writing an essay from the tub?