osed125 said:
First, having no gameplay doesn't mean the system can't accomplished that, and second, you doubt that the video wasn't in real time, which makes no sense, why would Nintendo showed a pre-render cutscene? If it was pre-render even the Wii could do it...There's also the Zelda tech demo (which looked amazing imo) and that was definitely in real time because you could change the camara and the lights. Almost all developers have praised the graphical capabilities of the console (comparing it the current gen mind you), the only thing negative they have mentioned is the "processing power", because it almost pretty certain the processor have a low clock speed, that's why the system have a GPGPU which will comprise for the low clock speed and will help in other stuff, it's something new for the devs so it takes time to get used to and make the most out of it. |
The Zelda demo looked great, and I really hope that's what they go for with the next Zelda. I couldn't get into the two the where released this gen.
Looking at specs it's should, but it won’t hold that title of best looking for long, and gloating over little things like puddle, is kind of pointless. The game looks fantastic on vita as well. But it isn't a fun game to play.
Sorry, I'm just not impressed with the Wiiu's graphical capabilities, yet. I’ll know for sure next month. I’m half temped to pick up a multi-platform game on both Wiiu and PS3 just the see the difference for myself.
Who knows why, maybe to say see we can look good too. To build hype and get people believing that it’s more than what it is. Besides it’s a focused demo, It know what’s it going to render and when, Several ticks could have been used to make that video look fantastic, but if you added game play to it, it would crumble. That’s why it matters.







