Mazty said:
"Fifth-generation aircraft are designed to incorporate numerous technological advances over the fourth generation jet fighter" Same can be said about games. Games are only called next-gen when they show tech advances over the games from the previous generation. All cars have a sterring wheel, axel and wheels. Should we then compare all of them on the same graph? We can't actually say the Wii U is close to the next-box or PS4 until we have confirmed specs. As it stands, what we have seen so far is a console that is on-par with the 360/PS3. Actually your point about GPU's proves me right. Low end GPUs are compared to the low end gpus of the generation before it. No one compared the GTX480 against the GT240 - they compared like to like. Using the Wii as an example, other than release date, how was it like the PS3 or 360? It was considerably weaker and didn't even run the same games. The same cannot be said about the 360 when compared to the PS3. |
You're wrong on all of these points, your points don't hold water from a marketing or technical standpoint. The WiiU shows technological advances over the PS360 just by the fact that it can use DX11 era instructions & effects and has a more modern architecture (not to mention it has a GPU with more power as well), so your argument is beyond flawed. I would also say wirelessly streaming of the game to the controller is a technological advance. Power per watt is the best ever seen from any console (efficiency is also a technical advance). Also, since generations are commonly based on advances from the predecessor to the specific product, as well as time of relase and what the product is competing against during its life, just consider the massive power leap from the Wii to the WiiU & the fact that sales will be compared to the PS4/Nextbox. Another interesting point, is a massive power jump the only technological advance that exists? (the answer is no in case you actually were wondering)
Funny, why would gameplay or control methods not be considered as a factor in generations of systems designed to play & control games? Your arguments are entertaining.
The point of GPUs very obviously proves you wrong, as does the same poing regarding CPUs, RAM (DDR3 has many different speeds), or pretty much any other computer based technology. A generation of the product is based on instruction / feature set as well as architecture & efficiency technically, as well as general time of release of a particular 'line'. Generations can have a wide range of power specs (Intel core2 series of processor vs i-series processors are generations, but a 1.6GHz i3 is in the same gen as a 3.3GHz i3, they are the same generation of processors because of architecture and feature set).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce#Generations - Note that the generations include the entire line of a specific series of cards (including the weaker and stronger cards in that line).
"GeForce 600 Series / GeForce 700 Series
In September 2010, Nvidia announced that the successor to Fermi would be the Kepler architecture, based on a 28 nm fabrication process. In early 2012, the first members of the 600 series were revealed to be based on the existing Fermi-architecture, intended for the laptop market. On March 22, 2012, the Kepler family debuted with the launch of the GTX680 (GK104 core) and GT640M (GK107 core). The GTX680 is Nvidia's most powerful single-core graphics card to date. On 29 April 2012 Nvidia announced the Kepler dual chip version, the GTX690, that features 2x GTX680. The series introduced significant improvements in energy efficiency.[18] On May 10, 2012, Nvidia introduced the GTX670 as a cutdown, cheaper version of the GK104, while retaining the same power efficiency improvements that GTX680 and GTX690 enjoyed over the GeForce cards based on the older Fermi architecture. Between August and September 2012, Nvidia introduced the GTX 660 Ti (GK104 core), GTX 660 (GK106 core), and GTX 650 (GK107 core) for budget friendly consumers."
Note that the cutdown, cheaper version of the card above is still in the same generation as the more powerful cards. The generation of GPUs is based on release time, feature set, efficiency, and architecture, not just raw performance. This holds true for pretty much all computer based technology. Your opinion =/= reality on this subject, in fact it is pretty much the opposite.
EDIT: Just thought of something else. The Radeon GPU series that the WiiU's GPU is based on is several GPU generations ahead of the GPU series' the PS3/360's were based on. The number of problems with your argument is staggering. In fact, pretty much every point you've made so far is the antithesis to reality. I saw you 'credential dropping' with your science degree. I see your degree and I raise you a degree in Computer Science & 10 years experience in the IT industry + a current position of Senior Systems Engineer for a Cloud Hosting/IT consulting firm.
