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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Miyamoto on Wii U hardware capabilities

mantlepiecek on 08 June 2011
sc94597 said:
mantlepiecek said:
Its very easy to know how powerful a system is on average. Look at its size: If its big, its probably a lot more powerful than small. This is usually due to heat production of better hardware.

Wii u is small so I don't really think it will have the potential of PS4/720. The wii was small too remember?

When PS4/720 release they will have extra-ordinary specs and tech-demos, blowing away Uncharted 3 type. The zelda tech-demo they showed was ok for this gen but under-whelming for the next-gen, when you compare it to other games like Uncharted, Gears, God of War.

And it was a tech demo as well, tech demos are supposed to look the best. If you think about it killzone 2 was showcased back in 2007 and that looked better than zelda tech demo.

I don't think wii u is that powerful at all. Maybe they will change the console design and make it more powerful.

The gamecube was also very small compared to the original Xbox and PS2, and it outperforms the first in a few tasks and the latter in most. It all depends on how efficiently it is designed, and how well the cooling system performs(in the case of the Gamecube it was great.) As for the PS720 having "extra-ordinary" specifications, unless they're released a few years from now, I doubt it. Both companies aren't interested in the expenses as much as they were in 2005/2006. I personally speculate that the difference will be comparable to what we saw with the Dreamcast --> Xbox at most and PS2 --> Xbox at least. Where the latter is significantly more powerful, but since the first sets a precedent by releasing earlier(PS2) most multiplatform games will be developed based off of the lowest factor(PS2/Wii U) opposed to that of the highest factor(Xbox/ One or both of the future consoles.) I think this generation will be comparable to the Dreamcast/PS2/GC/Xbox generation in one way or another rather than WIi/XBOX 360/PS3

 

 

Edit: Btw historically Zelda tech demos have looked WORSE than the actual games. This was the case for Majora's Mask/Oot vs Zelda 64 CD, Twilight Princess/WIndwaker vs Space World 2000, and the  2005 Zelda Twilight Princess vs  released Twilight Princess

Ok then. Lets talk about the tech demo with the bird. Even that didn't look next-gen. And its rumoured to be running on UE3.

And PS4/720 don't really have to do much to go next gen. 360 didn't have that much of a hardware loss, and PS3 had losses mainly because of blu-ray so its obvious that the leap will either be as big or bigger. PS Vita is a good example, its running games comparable to the PS3. On a smaller screen, but at a quite a huge resolution.

If they can manage that now, imagine what Sony can manage 2 years from now on a home console which will have a higer budget than portable.

The high-end PCs right now are the best way to determine next-gen.



Around the Network
irstupid on 08 June 2011

well you guys can interpret his comments however you want, whether you want ot think its stronger, almost as strong or same as 360/ps3.  but lets just get down to the dry bones

Do you guys enjoy playing uncharted, call of duty modern warfare, ect. Can you handle thier shitty graphics or is it unbearable?

personally i enjoy those games and think they look great and still think many wii games look great and enjoy them

so IF god forbid this new console is ONLY as powerful as the ps3, will the games NOT BE ENJOYABLE then? will somehow these games you are enjoying NOW suck by being on the Wii U?



IamAwsome on 08 June 2011
Necromunda said:
padib said:
IamAwsome said:
Lostplanet22 said:
BengaBenga said:
Quote: Nintendo’s new HD console marks company’s first attempt to cater to the more hardcore audience

People gaming since 2007 shouldn't write articles about gaming. Period.

So enlighten the non believers..When did Nintendo catered to the hardcore audience before?


  ?



Better Example:

Even  better then that:



sc94597 on 08 June 2011
mantlepiecek said:
sc94597 said:
mantlepiecek said:
Its very easy to know how powerful a system is on average. Look at its size: If its big, its probably a lot more powerful than small. This is usually due to heat production of better hardware.

Wii u is small so I don't really think it will have the potential of PS4/720. The wii was small too remember?

When PS4/720 release they will have extra-ordinary specs and tech-demos, blowing away Uncharted 3 type. The zelda tech-demo they showed was ok for this gen but under-whelming for the next-gen, when you compare it to other games like Uncharted, Gears, God of War.

And it was a tech demo as well, tech demos are supposed to look the best. If you think about it killzone 2 was showcased back in 2007 and that looked better than zelda tech demo.

I don't think wii u is that powerful at all. Maybe they will change the console design and make it more powerful.

The gamecube was also very small compared to the original Xbox and PS2, and it outperforms the first in a few tasks and the latter in most. It all depends on how efficiently it is designed, and how well the cooling system performs(in the case of the Gamecube it was great.) As for the PS720 having "extra-ordinary" specifications, unless they're released a few years from now, I doubt it. Both companies aren't interested in the expenses as much as they were in 2005/2006. I personally speculate that the difference will be comparable to what we saw with the Dreamcast --> Xbox at most and PS2 --> Xbox at least. Where the latter is significantly more powerful, but since the first sets a precedent by releasing earlier(PS2) most multiplatform games will be developed based off of the lowest factor(PS2/Wii U) opposed to that of the highest factor(Xbox/ One or both of the future consoles.) I think this generation will be comparable to the Dreamcast/PS2/GC/Xbox generation in one way or another rather than WIi/XBOX 360/PS3

 

 

Edit: Btw historically Zelda tech demos have looked WORSE than the actual games. This was the case for Majora's Mask/Oot vs Zelda 64 CD, Twilight Princess/WIndwaker vs Space World 2000, and the  2005 Zelda Twilight Princess vs  released Twilight Princess

Ok then. Lets talk about the tech demo with the bird. Even that didn't look next-gen. And its rumoured to be running on UE3.

 

What graphical features or techniques would you qualify as "next-gen?"

Have you seen the full tech demo?  

As for looking toward the high-end pc games  content of today determining what we have to look to for a semblance of what we'll see next generation;  some of the top teir PC games, Metro: 2033 - Last Light and Crysis 2 for example, both run on consoles of this generation. The difference of course being a hugh degree of quality at higher resolutions and with extra added features (like AA), but if we are to acknowledge the specifications that the Wii U when comparison to the PS360, it isn't too hard to believe that it will be able to perform these games closer to the PC versions than console versions. My laptop which has far less competative specifications compared to predicted Wii U's, while running a OS and background operations significantly plays these games better than the console versions; a console like the WIi U which can be optimized for should have far more potential. So it's safe to say that if you put in to PC terms, which probably won't work too well, the WIi U is far ahead of the current generation. 



drkohler on 08 June 2011
irstupid said:

well you guys can interpret his comments however you want, whether you want ot think its stronger, almost as strong or same as 360/ps3.  but lets just get down to the dry bones

so IF god forbid this new console is ONLY as powerful as the ps3..

From an engineering point of view, we've heard/seen two rumours:

1) The CPU is a triple core IBM risk chip in 45nm, clocked over 3.5GHz. More memory in every system path than PS360.

2) The Wii U unit looks like a white box roughly the size of a custom Blu-ray drive on top of a 2.5inch hdbay (no depth info visible).

Points 1) and 2) contradict each other in a fundamental way.

If 1) is true, the unit will generate a lot, and I mean _A LOT_ more heat than a (non-slim) XBox360. There is no way all this heat can be dissipated in an enclosure shown as the Wii U unit (and if you owned an original XBox360, you know what happens...) Never shown in the pictures/ seen on the E3 show ground is the separate, big, ugly power brick required to power such a unit (and it is absolutely obvious there was such a brick in all those demo enclosures at the show).

If 2) is true, then the chips are clocked lower than a (non-slim) XBox360/PS3 (allowing for sufficient heat dissipation), making the Wii U unit almost perform on par with PS360 (due to more memory available). (Maybe the white Wii U unit shown is a complete mockup).



Around the Network
Lostplanet22 on 08 June 2011
BengaBenga said:
Lostplanet22 said:
BengaBenga said:
Quote: Nintendo’s new HD console marks company’s first attempt to cater to the more hardcore audience

People gaming since 2007 shouldn't write articles about gaming. Period.

So enlighten the non believers..When did Nintendo catered to the hardcore audience before?


I guess you never played NES or SNES or N64 games. Even the purple lunchbox has some stuff like REmake and Metroid Prime that's pretty hard to call casual.

Yes I did but I just don't feel Nintendo really tried to cater the hardcore, with the GC it just felt like they tried it with a very few games that in the end get noticed by the hardcore crowd...Yeah MGS on GC made head turns but many didn't care when it was a remake and in the end their was only one game that made hardcore games jealous and that was Melee....

With N64 what did they really do? They had Rare but I doubt Nintendo influenced them to make games for Hardcore games;.And they had the Goldeneye license....and Rare ended up creating the best movie licensed game to date. It is probably the only time in gaming industry that Nintendo thought their is a developper that can match them..

And with the Snes generation it was rather Sega who was trying to cater the hardcore crowd with Sonic/streets of rage/Golden Axe/strider (many more) and sega is for cool people advertisements.

Nintendo basically always cater the hardcore crowd with minimal effort and if it is possible with the most wanted games like they tried with Monster hunter.

While if you compare that with MS it is a day and night difference,  they went and get Bungie (that with Marathon had a hardcore following), they made a financieal deal with Epic for Gears of war, they had a deal with bioware, they went to rockstar and get (time)exclusive DLC for GTA 4, they went to Itagaki and probably made a deal for Dead or alive and Ninja gaiden, they (probably) went over to Square enix and Konami for getting their popular franchises on their platform...with all of that you know you will have a hardcore crowd following, and even better they went to the other side of the world to a region that doesn't like Xbox to make a deal with Sakuguchi... (nu ik het er toch over heb werkt de laatste cd niet van Lost Odyssey ofzo :s? of ben je het beu geraakt op het einde)   that is what I call catering the hardcore crowd..



 

mantlepiecek on 08 June 2011
sc94597 said:
mantlepiecek said:
sc94597 said:
mantlepiecek said:
Its very easy to know how powerful a system is on average. Look at its size: If its big, its probably a lot more powerful than small. This is usually due to heat production of better hardware.

Wii u is small so I don't really think it will have the potential of PS4/720. The wii was small too remember?

When PS4/720 release they will have extra-ordinary specs and tech-demos, blowing away Uncharted 3 type. The zelda tech-demo they showed was ok for this gen but under-whelming for the next-gen, when you compare it to other games like Uncharted, Gears, God of War.

And it was a tech demo as well, tech demos are supposed to look the best. If you think about it killzone 2 was showcased back in 2007 and that looked better than zelda tech demo.

I don't think wii u is that powerful at all. Maybe they will change the console design and make it more powerful.

The gamecube was also very small compared to the original Xbox and PS2, and it outperforms the first in a few tasks and the latter in most. It all depends on how efficiently it is designed, and how well the cooling system performs(in the case of the Gamecube it was great.) As for the PS720 having "extra-ordinary" specifications, unless they're released a few years from now, I doubt it. Both companies aren't interested in the expenses as much as they were in 2005/2006. I personally speculate that the difference will be comparable to what we saw with the Dreamcast --> Xbox at most and PS2 --> Xbox at least. Where the latter is significantly more powerful, but since the first sets a precedent by releasing earlier(PS2) most multiplatform games will be developed based off of the lowest factor(PS2/Wii U) opposed to that of the highest factor(Xbox/ One or both of the future consoles.) I think this generation will be comparable to the Dreamcast/PS2/GC/Xbox generation in one way or another rather than WIi/XBOX 360/PS3

 

 

Edit: Btw historically Zelda tech demos have looked WORSE than the actual games. This was the case for Majora's Mask/Oot vs Zelda 64 CD, Twilight Princess/WIndwaker vs Space World 2000, and the  2005 Zelda Twilight Princess vs  released Twilight Princess

Ok then. Lets talk about the tech demo with the bird. Even that didn't look next-gen. And its rumoured to be running on UE3.

 

What graphical features or techniques would you qualify as "next-gen?"

Have you seen the full tech demo?  

As for looking toward the high-end pc games  content of today determining what we have to look to for a semblance of what we'll see next generation;  some of the top teir PC games, Metro: 2033 - Last Light and Crysis 2 for example, both run on consoles of this generation. The difference of course being a hugh degree of quality at higher resolutions and with extra added features (like AA), but if we are to acknowledge the specifications that the Wii U when comparison to the PS360, it isn't too hard to believe that it will be able to perform these games closer to the PC versions than console versions. My laptop which has far less competative specifications compared to predicted Wii U's, while running a OS and background operations significantly plays these games better than the console versions; a console like the WIi U which can be optimized for should have far more potential. So it's safe to say that if you put in to PC terms, which probably won't work too well, the WIi U is far ahead of the current generation. 

Yes. I have seen the full tech demo.

Even then it doesn't look next-gen, I am fairly certain that tech-demo would be possible on the 360/PS3 since there are games that look that good on HD consoles like God of War 3 and Crysis 2. And next-gen should at least match the PC of this gen, if you take a look at crysis 2 on PC it looks better than the tech demo that is not even a game.

It doesn't look like next-gen. This in fact, looks like next-gen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM



Chrizum on 08 June 2011
Dodece said:
Nintendo is learning their lesson, but drawing the wrong conclusion. They are not actually addressing their core problem. Pun entirely intentional. Instead they are hoping that others will solve their problem for them. They hope that third parties will be enough to satisfy the gamers that Nintendo disinherited early in this console generation. The problem is that Nintendo abandoned their supporters by refusing to provide exclusive content that addressed their needs. This seems to be nothing more then a dodge.

This launch window for Nintendo is going to be a narrow one. Nintendo has addressed the third party, but I am just not seeing them address the first party, or having a robust second party strategy. What chased away the core and the hardcore gamers this generation was the lack of first party support. Nintendo didn't offer up enough exclusive titles to feed that segment. Primarily due to the fact that Nintendo software development was profiting exclusively on the casual titles. Really it wasn't hard to see why they were making huge bank on them.

Nintendo needs to do some unprecedented things. They need to acquire new studios. Build them or buy them. The fact is plain they cannot support both groups at the same time. Once that is done hand off those series that just see retreads every year or two. Give the core studios a new mission. Build the hardcore exclusives that the brand desperately needs. Nintendo simply cannot compete without matching titles. Those also have to be there on day one, and arrive regularly for that first year. It might actually be best to jam the channel.

The problem for Nintendo is they cannot divorce themselves from the notion that they can be both a developer, and a manufacturer equally. Being a manufacturer means your going to make sacrifices on the games front. Sony and Microsoft have to do this all the time to keep their libraries healthy. Both would love to just make properties that sell five or six million copies annually. However if they did that their consoles offerings would be entirely one dimensional. So they force themselves to go about plugging holes.

I just cannot see Nintendo changing their ways. I have seen them churn out the exact same software generation after generation. Perhaps it is a matter of narrow minded thinking, or perhaps they simply don't have the skills to actually offer up hardcore gaming. I know being hard on them, but let me put this question to you. Can you even imagine this without laughing your ass off.

Shigeru Miyamoto comes up on stage to unveil his new game. A survival horror game where zombies are running around ripping peoples heads off, and you will you trusty chain saw must save the world from this plague. Then he shows you the mechanic where you can use a flame thrower to make walls of fire to keep the zombies off of you. Yeah the thought made me laugh too.

I like bloody zombie games as much as the next guy but please stop this "hardcore" crap and just say you hate it that Nintendo doesn't make games that make 15 year olds foam at the mouth gasping "wow, that shit is soooo bad ass!"



Acevil on 08 June 2011
padib said:
mantlepiecek said:

Yes. I have seen the full tech demo.

Even then it doesn't look next-gen, I am fairly certain that tech-demo would be possible on the 360/PS3 since there are games that look that good on HD consoles like God of War 3 and Crysis 2. And next-gen should at least match the PC of this gen, if you take a look at crysis 2 on PC it looks better than the tech demo that is not even a game.

It doesn't look like next-gen. This in fact, looks like next-gen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM

You have got to be joking. HD is HD, after that it's lots of penis measuring.

After that it is the smoothness, AA, graphical effects, physics and AI. I think The Zelda Tech Demo, showcases a lot of potiential. 



 

Dodece on 08 June 2011

I think people are taking my last paragraph too seriously. I was highlighting the fact that Nintendo is entrenched in a comfort zone, and isn't likely to leave that comfort zone. While not all core games need be mature. You do have to have some mature games. Frankly it is getting a little bit insulting that Nintendo wants to treat all the owners of their consoles like they are both perpetually eight, and live in some insipid utopia.

This is what people mean when they label Nintendo as Kiddie. The company suffers from a pervasive cuteness that eventually begins to flat line brain function. Here is something worth thinking about. A lot of gamers label the 360 as a hardcore console, and in many ways that is what it does. However Microsoft doesn't just stay in that comfort zone. We have seen a lot of cute and fuzzy games come out of Microsoft this generation. Games like Kameo, Viva Pinata, Kinectimals, and a couple others. The same holds true for Sony as well.

Which begs the question how can Microsoft for examples sake pitch both Gears of War and Viva Pinata. The point is this they aren't mutually exclusive. So why does Nintendo behave as if all their games must be E for Everybody What was Metroid rated T for Teen. That was their olive branch. Help me out guys I am not finding any Nintendo first party games that are rated mature, and damned if I haven't been looking.

I know I am going to get the canned answer that a game doesn't have to be mature to be good. You know what I am a adult, and while I do not need a shower of blood and decapitations. I am not tolerant at all of the idea that I cannot have things like romance, dialogue, moral dilemmas, and honest language. What exactly is wrong with just wanting some cerebral stimulation. The world has changed, and the industry has changed, but Nintendo doesn't seem to have changed.



http://live.xbox.com/member/Dodece