Andrespetmonkey said:
Jay520 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Conegamer said:
Well, there's no real surprise here. The only people who disagreed were 'anonymous' sources. Everyone who was actually named who spoke about the WiiU knew it would be much more powerful. I mean, 2GB RAM? Modern GPU? All we need is the clock speeds for the CPU to confirm it, but so far it's looking very powerful indeed. |
It's 1.5 gb RAM.
But yeah, it's clearly going to be more powerful than this gen. The real question is how will it compare to Orbis and Durango, and I think it's unlkely that the Wii U will be close to achieving what these other 2 will (physics, graphics etc.). I think it'll probably be able to run the same games, but with a lot of drawbacks. That's mostly speculation though.
|
People always mention physics as a result of technical ability. I don't get it. What the Hell is physics and why do you need more power to handle it? How complex do you need your physics to be? I've always thought physics was something limited by developer ability, not hardware ability. Similar to AI. And to be honest, I have never played a game that made me say "oh my Dear Lord! Look at those physics!". Same with AI. I have also never seen a reviewer praising physics. Same with AI. |
The physics in Crysis and Uncharted 2 blew me away when I first saw them, and were better than anything I'd seen previously. Same goes for HL2. It's probably a mixture of both technical ability and the developers ability, like anything to a point, but I'n not so sure. I have noticed progression with better hardware, though. Definetely. Look at destructible maps or objects in games over the gens and you'll see a huge difference imo.
|
Since I have also played Uncharted 2, can you explain why Uncharted 2 had great physics so i can get a better understanding of it. I understand destructable* environments, but UC2 didn't have destructable environments. (Though it did have destructable objects).
*BTW, did you know 'destructable' wasn't a word? Or at least my phone thinks so.
