You know what would be nice? If the Wii U could play last gen titles with a big resolution bump.
Well I've got good news for you!
You know what would be nice? If the Wii U could play last gen titles with a big resolution bump.
3rd parties don't regret skipping Wii, and they aren't going to regret skipping Wii U judging from initial 3rd party game sales.
Yes it does. Uncharted 3 looks good, but 1 looks like shit compared to Nintendoland or UC3.
edit- Uncharted 1 is not a good looking game from that gen in general.
But how can you getaway with such a big lie and expect anyone to take you seriously. Marginally better? Let me guess PS4 is a marginal improvement over WiiU and 360/PS3. Because that was what the choir was pritching in those Wii U threads.
My apologies for being so blunt but i don't even know how to aproach such an outrageous statement.
The thing is, it's starting to become questionable that this is the case. Nintendo could have achieved more parity with competing next gen consoles if they had made smarter design choices and prioritized different things.
For example, rather than work with off-the-shelf parts like Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo instead chose to create a more expensive customized chip that would prioritize low-energy consumption and that would generate less heat (so as to make the Wii U as small as possible). The trade-off here is that even though Nintendo's using a more expensive chip, we're not seeing the benefits of this in actual graphical performance which, come to find out, people care about more than making the machine as small and energy conservative as humanly possible. Great ideas, to be sure, but a mistake to prioritize as highly as Iwata did.
The gamepad is also looking more and more like a bad gamble. Iwata could have chosen this gen to evolve the concept of the Wiimote instead of spending precious R&D and raising the price of the hardware to focus on a poor tablet imitation that just doesn't appeal to the market.
Basically, a theoretical Wii 2 -a machine that used more off-the-shelf parts and built upon previous innovations- could have been closer to PS4/Durango in power, an improved wiimote could have functioned as the differentiator, and the thing could have been priced about the same as the Wii U. This would have been an overall smarter move in every imaginable way.
I thought nothing in Nintendoland looked as good as thein UC1.Jeep scene
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGjgYfG630
Video is even in poor quality but still manages to impress, minor spoilers for a UC1 mission
Not even the jeep scene looks better than Nintendoland, no.
If quantifiable things were never misunderstood the world would have been a much different place.How is underpowered a misunderstanding? Isnt power something quantifiable?
Can you show me a video of a section of Nintendoland that looks better than the jeep scene in UC1? Because i am pretty sure ive played all the minigames and nothing was visually impressive even compared to older PS3 and 360 games.
Okay, i disagree, nothing looks visually impressive at all. Lack of detail and all the games are "small" as many mini games are confined to a single "scene".
Most of them look just like any random Xbox Live release
The lighting is heads and shoulders above anything in the uncharted games. The artstyle is ass, but ultimately the game does look better.
Your opinions are what you could call upside down.
If quantifiable things were never misunderstood the world would have been a much different place.
How did this thread turn into Nintendoland vs Uncharted? >_O
How did this thread turn into Nintendoland vs Uncharted? >_O
How did this thread turn into Nintendoland vs Uncharted? >_O
I will probably sound horribly blunt now, I will rub someone the wrong way I know, but to me, the moment you decide to play on a console, you have already forsaken technical prowness in favor of accessibility.
I like Wonderful 101 very much but Knack is on a whole other level. Like, approaching "photorealism" level.
I will probably sound horribly blunt now, I will rub someone the wrong way I know, but to me, the moment you decide to play on a console, you have already forsaken technical prowness in favor of accessibility.
As such, from my point of view, spending too much time talking/discussing over specs won't bring us to any good. Consoles aren't made with power in mind, that has never been the case. And that's not something subject to change, it seems. PC is where it is at.
What I will agree on, from the technical standpoint, is how troubled wiiu's future looks, given it's architecture: too alien compared to the others. Sony managed to overcome such terrifying hurdle, will nintendo do the same? I'd say yes. They are better poised on the market than sony ever was in 2006/2007.
Your opinions are what you could call upside down.
How did this thread turn into Nintendoland vs Uncharted? >_O
Is the Wii U so different architecture wise then?
Do you think the Wii U is too powerful? Should they have gone for just Wii levels of performance with the touchscreen controller and priced it at $250?
But how can you getaway with such a big lie and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Jesus! Who are you going to believe, Refreshment or your lying eyes? It took a good long while for me to be impressed with the 360's graphics and I know a lot of now happy 360 owners who felt the same way.
It just wasn't that big of a jump.
I can't help but think...does Ninny care about gamers? Think about it. Their a business...out to make profit.
Well, that's not happening at the moment. So maybe they'll be forced to care unlike during the Wii years.
If they really wanted to.....couldn't they hire many many more to meet demand? I mean they have the cash right? If they were serious...couldn't they acquire the resources to churn out like a 1st party top notch game a month?
What is the big resolutin bump in this game?
Is the Wii U so different architecture wise then?
As for Nintendo fanboy arguments, over a year of analysis and speculation in various threads suggests the Wii U's architecture is more similar to that of the PS4 and next Xbox than it is to the PS3 and 360, just with a lot less raw power. That's why the "seven year-old tech" comments are technically inaccurate. As for how that will pan out, there's no way to know for now.
From PS4/Nextbox, which are going x86? Yep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpOY7YaXiJQ
Things always look better when you remember them. Then you see them again and realize how wrong you were.
A big lie? Just compare them! People keep posting Kameo and forget games like even MGS3 had areas with tons of grass in it. What made it impressive was the resolution bump and more extensive use of bump/normal mapping as opposed to simply raw polygons. But I'm saying the best of that gen, Ninja Gaiden Black, Doom 3, RE4, MGS3, Splinter Cell:CT, MP2 compared to the launch titles of the 360 and PS3 held up remarkably well
And it's not my fault you're getting pissy about the PS4. If you think it was only Wii U threads where people thought Killzone looked no better than Crysis 3 (which makes no sense. I thought Wii U fanboys didn't play other systems?) then I suggest you going back and reading those threads again...
Compared to the PS4 I don't think you can dispute that the Wii U just isn't in the same ballpark in terms of raw horsepower. I just wish people would accept that this wasn't incompetence on Nintendo's part, but a conscious decision to devote the cost of the console elsewhere (the control interface). You can debate how stupid/smart that decision was, but let's not pretend Nintendo didn't have a clue as to how powerful Sony's and Microsoft's successor consoles would be.
As for Nintendo fanboy arguments, over a year of analysis and speculation in various threads suggests the Wii U's architecture is more similar to that of the PS4 and next Xbox than it is to the PS3 and 360, just with a lot less raw power. That's why the "seven year-old tech" comments are technically inaccurate. As for how that will pan out, there's no way to know for now.
You are just lying to make yourself feel better about the console. Don't know why you need to reach those heights, just accept reality.
Consoles have often been made with power in mind though. The "problem" is that they are fixed systems and the hardware cant be upgraded as time goes by, so in comparison to PC, they will fall short behind as time goes by indeed. But power/graphics capabilities are a factor being concidered when they're being made. Its also something being concidered to make sure that the system doesnt feel outdated very fast.I will probably sound horribly blunt now, I will rub someone the wrong way I know, but to me, the moment you decide to play on a console, you have already forsaken technical prowness in favor of accessibility.
As such, from my point of view, spending too much time talking/discussing over specs won't bring us to any good. Consoles aren't made with power in mind, that has never been the case. And that's not something subject to change, it seems. PC is where it is at.
What I will agree on, from the technical standpoint, is how troubled wiiu's future looks, given it's architecture: too alien compared to the others. Sony managed to overcome such terrifying hurdle, will nintendo do the same? I'd say yes. They are better poised on the market than sony ever was in 2006/2007.
I like Wonderful 101 very much but Knack is on a whole other level. Like, approaching "photorealism" level.
*Yawn*
Oh, comparing it to the weakest last gen console. Surely this wasn't intentional. What's next? Posting current gen bullshots and PS2 launch gen beta screenshots?
The point is the 360 launch titles only looked marginally better than the best of the GC and Xbox 1. The resolution bump was what made the difference seem significant
What kind of backlash are we talking about. As far as I know, it's not like sales of games are swinging in favour to PS3 or something?
I don't think the people who buy annual Madden and FIFA, pick up Halo and Gears when they come out, etc. really care that there's also this Kinect thing some people buy the system for to flail around in front of.
15-35 heterosexual middle-class males have always been the dominant force in the market - or at least since the PS1 era when gaming went "mainstream"; they were simply buying different games like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts before people decided to start calling them "dudebro." And then they were supplanted by the "casual," the everyone else, which had previously been an afterthought, as the dominant market force driving the success of the Wii and the NDS.
As a self-proclaimed "dudebro" myself I agree with you. That being said, dudebros aren't as close-minded as many would think. I think the main core gamer demographic (14-35 year old males, many of which GAF would consider Dudebro, and the core gamer females) are at odds with what everyone else who is not them want from video games. Nintendo went after "everyone else" with the Wii, yet strangely tried to get an audience they shunned by creating the Wii U.
With the Wii U seemingly being a half-assed product aimed at casuals and core, Iwata saying they'll have "revenge" on the third parties who shunned the Wii U baffles me.