By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Embracing the Wii U: 5 Reasons Haters Should Reconsider Slamming the Console

Baron on 04 October 2012
HoloDust said:
Baron said:
HoloDust said:

I can't find the link to site where I picked up rumoured 720/PS4 rumoured specs (it was some German site), but it was more or less detailing diagram in following http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405922,00.asp, with some additional info, crunching numbers to equivalent of slightly overclocked 7850. Some other rumours for PS4 (http://www.vgleaks.com/world-exclusive-ps4-in-deep-first-specs/) are also putting it in this range, some even mention downclocked 7950 type performance. That's just few I came across in last few months, so either 7850 or 7970m (which is downclocked mobile 7870) could be  decent starting points in lack of exact specs, considering they are around 8x (indicated next-gen projections) more powerfull than current-gen GPUs.

I have a hard time believing the PS4 and XBox 8 will feauture such powerful (and powerhungry) graphics cards. The diagram shows the XBox will use around 120 Watts total with the SOC around 50 Watts. That leaves less then 70 Watts for the GPU. A 7770 already uses 80 Watts of power.
And then there's the cost. Every rumor suggests the new XBox will be packaged with Kinect 2.0. I don't know what price Kinect 2.0 will be but I doubt it will be 50 dollars or less so unless Microsoft will release the XBox at a price range of 499 dollars (highly doubtful in the current market) or higher I doubt the new XBox will feature powerful and costly hardware like the 360 did at the time.

As for the link to the supposed PS4 specs, I don't believe them for a second. DirectX 11.5? The Tahiti supports 11.1, next up is DX12. A Graphics card of at least 399,- in retail? That's about the same price as the 7800 GT in which the RSX was based. If that rumor is true the PS4 will be the PS3 all over again. They could sell it for 499,- and still make a massive loss. Sony can't afford that.
And then there's the fact Sony has already said they wouldn't be gunning for the most powerful console next gen as that has only cost them money.

So I doubt the XBox and PS4 will use anything close to the tahiti cards. Even if they're underclocked a card based on those chips will require at least over a 100 Watts of power. That doesn't fit the diagrams 120 Watt of system power at all. An underclocked 7770 though (or an overclocked 7670 or equivalent) does fit the diagram. Those will still be more powerful than the rumored Wii U GPU though but nothing like 8 or 10 times more powerful.


I agree, Tahiti based card do seem bit of a stretch, especially considering it's tied to some of PS4 rumours, and knowing Sony's financial situation.....

On the other hand, 7850 equivalent card (or performance) does not sound that crazy - it's nowhere near high end card even at this moment (can be found for 180$ or even less), let alone one year from now, it's in the line of that 8x Xbox360 power performance target (not 8x WiiU, it's 10x e6760 in OpenCL fluid simulation and RayTracing), and if you look at 7970m (not saying they're actually using this one), which is downclocked mobile version of 7870, it's rated at 75W TDP - how they manage to do that compared to desktop version is beyond my knowledge to be honest. Add 95W Bulldozer 8-core CPU (not saying they're actually using this one)....still sounds reasonable I'd say (though not 120W as in that diagram) - original 360s were peaking around 185-190W in games, IIRC, PS3 even more.

I'm expecting something more along the lines of a 7870m. 45 Watt max TDP seems to fit the XBox diagram perfectly. 50 Watts for the SOC and around 25 Watts for the rest of the components seems about right. Within a console that could very well result in the targeted 6-8 times the performance of the XBox 360. I doubt Microsoft and Sony will release another +/-200 Watts console.



Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf on 05 October 2012
curl-6 said:
Alphachris said:
Well, but the story is there to keep you interested. There are some games that can live without a story. Puzzler like Tetris etc... Just Games that are there to challange your skill.

But there are more classes of gamer. Not everyone is playing just to test his skills or to win in a competitive situation. There are some really entertaining games that over great characters or a complex story that make you care about the world and the characters. There are games that can make me laugh, games that can almost make me cry, games that make me think about the deeper consequences of religion, war, atomic bombs or propaganda and etnic cleansing.

Games can be seen as a simple "electronic toy", that keep you busy for short periods. But games can also have the educational and entertainment value of a good theatre play. And if you played some really good games like Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy XIII or Heavy Rain playing a game without such experience can feel quite empty and you miss something.

I grew up with Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World, but after Playing Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Dexter or Sly Racoon, I miss Character interaction between Mario and Luigi.

I've played Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy XIII and Heavy Rain, and honestly I didn't find them much good. FFXIII and Heavy Rain in particular fell flat beause their gameplay was lacking in favour of graphics/story.

If you demand story, then yeah, Mario's not for you. But to me, the lack of story in Mario is like the lack of machine guns in Citizen Kane; kind of beside the point.

I'd have preferred other examples of games with story: while there are very few games with such a good story and so many interesting things to do that they are excellent despite being on rails, the best are those in which the players builds or contribute building the story with their actions, choices, and, in some cases, skills (this could be the case in action, when you could be able to save or not an NPC, on in peaceful interaction, when you could be able to unlock or not a conversation or direct it in different directions affecting the way the story evolves). Such games can have a strong or loose story, doing it with a strong story is much more difficult. Examples of the difficult path: Deus Ex, Planescape:Torment and a few more, where devs built a strong and complex story for each of your possible important choices. Examples of the easier path: Morrowind, where the main story, that's the main quest, is quite simple and straightforward, but it doesn't put the game on rails, as you can build your own playing experiences with tons of sidequests and activities that add complexity, but basically they don't affect the main story, making the work for devs a lot simpler. And finally there are excellent examples that stay somewhere between the two approaches, like the first two Fallout, Gothic, Mass Effect and we can say the vast majority of RPGs with a story that's not too simple.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


Player1x3 on 05 October 2012
curl-6 said:
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
JustThatGamer said:

God of War: Ascension >>>> Bayonetta 2. 

Doubtful, as none of the God of War games so far are as good as the first Bayonetta. ;)


The Market and the critics would highly disagree

Those both gravitate towards familiar brand names.

Ok, GOW 1 sold more and got better reviews when it was still unfamiliar brand name

Standards for action games were different in 2005 to 2010 I'd argue, and GoW didn't have Bayonetta's divisive presentation.

Combat is the key factor; it's so much deeper and more fluid in Bayonetta, and that's what matters most in an action game.


Ha, and yet people still loved GOW3 (in 2010) more than Bayonetta.This is a fact And Bayonetta's divisive presentation should alone tell you something about game's quality.

And combat yeah... i loved the whole ''press triangle to do a combo'' thing

By 2010 GoW3 was a familiar franchise inflated by the memories of how great it's gameplay was... in 2005. And Bayonetta was divisive stylistically because some people are easily offended, not because it was in any way bad.

The amount of combos, abilities, variables, and the rest dwarfed the comparatively simplistic GoW system. Chaining together a wide variety of moves with dodges and tranformations at a breakneck pace made Kratos feel like an arthritic old man.


So GOW3 got better reviews because it was a familiar franchise and Bayonetta got worse reviews even tho it's a better game (especially on PS3)? Ok great argument, but my point still stands, the fact is that GOW is generally considered to be better in the VG industry

Popularity and quality don't necessarily correlate. That's why things like Twilight and COD are popular.

I don't need reviewers or other gamers to decide for me what's good and what isn't.

Bayonetta outperforms GoW in the most important aspect of an action game, combat, therefore it's better.

Yeah because people tend to just buy crap they dont think its good. Nothing gets popular by not being good or effective. Wether or not something is good is subjective, but quiality isnt objective. Just because you dont like something doesnt means its not quality



curl-6 on 05 October 2012
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
Player1x3 said:
curl-6 said:
JustThatGamer said:

God of War: Ascension >>>> Bayonetta 2. 

Doubtful, as none of the God of War games so far are as good as the first Bayonetta. ;)


The Market and the critics would highly disagree

Those both gravitate towards familiar brand names.

Ok, GOW 1 sold more and got better reviews when it was still unfamiliar brand name

Standards for action games were different in 2005 to 2010 I'd argue, and GoW didn't have Bayonetta's divisive presentation.

Combat is the key factor; it's so much deeper and more fluid in Bayonetta, and that's what matters most in an action game.


Ha, and yet people still loved GOW3 (in 2010) more than Bayonetta.This is a fact And Bayonetta's divisive presentation should alone tell you something about game's quality.

And combat yeah... i loved the whole ''press triangle to do a combo'' thing

By 2010 GoW3 was a familiar franchise inflated by the memories of how great it's gameplay was... in 2005. And Bayonetta was divisive stylistically because some people are easily offended, not because it was in any way bad.

The amount of combos, abilities, variables, and the rest dwarfed the comparatively simplistic GoW system. Chaining together a wide variety of moves with dodges and tranformations at a breakneck pace made Kratos feel like an arthritic old man.


So GOW3 got better reviews because it was a familiar franchise and Bayonetta got worse reviews even tho it's a better game (especially on PS3)? Ok great argument, but my point still stands, the fact is that GOW is generally considered to be better in the VG industry

Popularity and quality don't necessarily correlate. That's why things like Twilight and COD are popular.

I don't need reviewers or other gamers to decide for me what's good and what isn't.

Bayonetta outperforms GoW in the most important aspect of an action game, combat, therefore it's better.

Yeah because people tend to just buy crap they dont think its good. Nothing gets popular by not being good or effective. Wether or not something is good is subjective, but quiality isnt objective. Just because you dont like something doesnt means its not quality

Exactly. I never said it was.



WindyCityHeat on 07 October 2012

People are slamming it because it's more of the sane from nintendo. Technical inferiority, cheap party games, last gen ports. It's understandable, but much like supbar smartphone games.... If it sells, it sells.

Cant wait to see the numbers, should be interesting.



Around the Network
lilbroex on 07 October 2012
WindyCityHeat said:
People are slamming it because it's more of the sane from nintendo. Technical inferiority, cheap party games, last gen ports. It's understandable, but much like supbar smartphone games.... If it sells, it sells.

Cant wait to see the numbers, should be interesting.

 

The hardware is, once again, using a completely new gameplay method and its stronger than any console today. It is also using technology that has never been used in mainstream gaming before like NFC and panoramic ingame view. How is that technically inferio?

Cheap party games? Where are these? I've only seen 2 party games announced for the Wii U. The other 20+ games are all action. I agree that th ePS3 and 360 are indeed now last gen, though only a handful of the games are straight ports. Most of the ports them are upgrades near the level of reamkes and the other half are completely new.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Also, I'm sure the most advanced console in gaming history is going to sell, sell, and sell. I just hope there are enough left for me to get one after launch.  My money is read. I can't wait to see the numbers either, especially for Bayonetta 2 and Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate.



WindyCityHeat on 08 October 2012

You've fallen into the same trap every nintendo fan falls into. You're comparing wiiu to PS3/360.

Bottom line is that the majority of the release titles are either ports or party games, you just admitted it. Thank You.

Anyway Im interested in the numbers, sales, reception, etc.. Not random comparisons between different hardware generations.



lilbroex on 08 October 2012
WindyCityHeat said:
You've fallen into the same trap every nintendo fan falls into. You're comparing wiiu to PS3/360.

Bottom line is that the majority of the release titles are either ports or party games, you just admitted it. Thank You.

Anyway Im interested in the numbers, sales, reception, etc.. Not random comparisons between different hardware generations.

I'm not comparing it to the PS3/360. I'm comparing it to every console released to date. If I was just comparing it to the last gen consoles I would be comparing it to the Wii and DS, not Sony or Microsofts.


I admitted what? I said the "majority" of release titles are new games and "of the ones that are ports" the Wii U is getting the most superior versions exept where EA is concerned. Don't thank me. You misinterpreted things on your own. Thank yourself.

The sells are already high and it hasn't even come out yet.