| curl-6 said: The devs themselves confirmed it uses subsurface scattering: http://nintendoeverything.com/weekly-screenshot-art-of-balance-wii-u-2-marvelous-menu-screen/ And the devs of Trine 2 have gone on record saying the PS3 and 360 could not handle the Wii U version without downgrades: http://www.geek.com/games/ps3-360-cant-cope-with-trine-2-wii-u-graphics-1521231/ To max out a console, you need technically ambitious games designed specifically around the quirks of the hardware. Such efforts are virtually non-existent on Wii U because third parties devs aren't interested, and 1st party devs are technologically conservative. On Xbox/Playstation, you have devs pouring tens of millions of dollars into pushing the graphical envelope as far as they can. Nobody's doing that on Wii U, therefore its full potential isn't being tapped. |
Unless the devs are mistaking bloom with sub surface scattering; they're talking out of their ass. The only thing that "may" have it, is that clear thing. Textures, lighting, scene scale, is all a joke.
Trine is FAR from being a technically good looking title. It's a 2D platformer with simple models/textures and there are more far superior titles on the PS3 and 360. But let's take a look at what wouldn't run on the PS3/360. The "Goblin Menace" expansion. I was taking a look at it just now and the only thing impressive is the lighting model. Which from what I can tell is running on a deferred renderer to give you all those local lights. Killzone 2 was one of the first games to use a deferred renderer, is capable of using far more local light sources that is present in Trine with a global illumination model going on to light the world (Which Trine does). It does what Trine is doing, with far larger, more complex levels. It has far more enemies on screen at the same time, and is one of the best textured titles on the PS2. I'm not even going to mention the far more better looking and demanding titles since Killzone 2 released cause they make Trine 2 look like a PS2 game in comparison. I'll believe that the devs weren't capable of porting their code as is (i.e. lazy/costs) and didn't want to figure out how to bring their code over. And as I said before, the Wii U is a bit more capable, but that's like saying the Xbox is more capable than the Gamecube. To say the PS3 or 360 (Well the 360 might not) isn't capable of running that expansion with downgrades is as believable as Ubisoft saying the PS4 couldn't handle higher resolutions of Assassin's Creed Unity.
Lastly as I said, the Wii U isn't capable of much more than the PS3 or 360. Is it more capable? Of course. It doesn't have the processing power behind it to actually give you something much better. So you're stuck with very mature graphic engines that have spent the last 7 years being optimized(I.e. as good as it gets) ported to the Wii U. P.S. stop ignoring all the technical aspects explaining the Wii U's deficiencies that hinder its advantages. I've explained it 3 times to you and your only counter argument are showing me subpar technical titles with devs talking out of their asses to make it look like their games are "amazing". Cause you know, no devs have talked out of their asses hyping up their games and engines. Find something that you can actually use, like a powerpoint presentation from devs, or a game that actually does something better (Which you won't be able to find).
