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

Forums - Nintendo - Digital Foundry vs. Wii U at E3!

killerzX on 09 June 2012
pezus said:
Wait, what was the point of that Wii screenshot? It looks bad

yeah... who reloads with their finger on the trigger anyway, do they want to get shot?



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 09 June 2012
VetteDude said:
Shinobi-san said:

While i can appreciate the step up in graphical fidelity that demos such as the UE4, squere enix demo, and watch dogs demo show...i also believe that it is becoming increasingly harder to distinguish the difference between current gen graphics and next gen graphics.

Most people can see the major difference between digimon on PS1 compared to shadow of the collosus on PS2 compared to U2 on PS3. But the amount of people that can distinguish the difference between the new tech shown at E3 to say U2, U3 etc. is much less.

And as we continue to advance in graphical fidelity...less people will notice the difference. Not to mention that computing power in its current form will slow down tremendously in the future.

Heres the important part imo: Its not that next gen will show inferior gains to the current gen compared to what we've seen in the past, but it will appear that way to the average joe playing games.


Consoles have caught up to screen tech. TV's and monitors have pitifully low pixel density. Most high end phones ship with 720p screens now, and thats 5" max. The Galaxy Note 2 is rumored to have a 5.5" 1080p screen. 4K TV is not far off, and next gen consoles better have some horsepower. Current high-end desktop GPU's even struggle. VRAM bandwidth is a little too low, and we need more texture units. But the Wii U will fall vastly behind if 4K comes out on schedule.

4K TV is quite far off for anyone to bother developing a video game for it. Hell, for the first few years of this gen, it was barely worth it for Sony and Microsoft to be able to do anything more than 480p.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

NintendoPie on 09 June 2012
pezus said:
NintendoPie said:
pezus said:

Graphics technology is not opinion though. Did you see the Unreal 4 tech demo?


I'm not talking about graphics opinion. I'm talking about the.... ugh.... its hard to explain. XD Did you wee when we were talking about photorealism? That's the types of opinions I'm talking about.

Yes, we are nowhere near photorealism in games. Next gen will bring us much closer (Wii U not that much) though. The generation after next gen might be full of uncanny valley stuff and who knows where it goes from there.


I don't know what the beck uncanny valley means. And you totally side-stepped why I brought up photorealism. I brought it up because I think it would be stupid to try to make games photorealistic.

That is the type of opinion I'm talking about. 



NintendoPie on 09 June 2012
pezus said:

I don't blame them, I blame their eyes. Get them checked boyz!


You are totally not seeing the point Pezus.



Mr Khan on 09 June 2012
Nsanity said:



http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=38711446&postcount=60

More importantly, that GAF thread seems to confirm that this entire DF artical is bullshit.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
creampie on 09 June 2012

vg industry is following the movie industry pushing visual enhancement as THE priority
we all know how bad movies are today, i just hope Nintendo stays for a loooong time



osed125 on 09 June 2012
NintendoPie said

I don't know what the beck uncanny valley means. And you totally side-stepped why I brought up photorealism. I brought it up because I think it would be stupid to try to make games photorealistic.

That is the type of opinion I'm talking about. 

This is a really good video explaining what the uncanny valley is



Nintendo and PC gamer

dahuman on 09 June 2012

It's awesome how this article said a whole bunch of fucking nothing.



Panama on 10 June 2012

Was hoping for Rayman Legends to hit 60fps like Origins.



Andrespetmonkey on 10 June 2012
lilbroex said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
NintendoPie said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

Resolution is a part of the graphics, and dependant on better hardware. And you choose 2 games that look exceptionally good. Show me an open world game with destructible environments and hundreds of npc on screen look like Uncharted and I'll be very impressed.

Stuff like aliasing (jaggies) and 720p instead of 1080p bugs me, because no matter how polished a game is, lack of AA always makes it look a little un-polished, at least for me anyway. And better hardware isn't just about better graphics, but more detailed and interactive environments and better multi-tasking

That's not the one I really wanted but it is close.

This is what I was really looking for in screen shot form

It looks a little fuzzy because I'm pretty sure this is off-screen footage. 

Firstly, that's a bull shot.

Secondly, Ass Creed 3 does not look as good as Uncharted 2 or 3, textures are no where near the same quality, the lighting isn't as good, the character models aren't as detailed. No motion blur, no Anti-aliasing.

Look at the UE4 demo or the Square Enix luminous engine Demo, and that's what next gen should be aiming for. They are on-par with CGI. After that it's photorealism.


1. Nothing is on par with CGI and it never will be. UE4 demo looked on par with CGI to me, as in it looked almost as good. It is physically impossible. UE4 is a PC graphics engine, not a console engine. The specs needed to run it properly cost thousands of dollars whosale to manufacture.

I know... Look at the first samritan demo (I know it's not UE4) they showed, it took 3 gtx 580s to run that, a couple months later they got it running on 1 with hardly any difference. Optimization goes a long way.

2. Generations are not decided by graphics, they are decided by overall technical advancement.

I agree, and there is no objection to this in my post.

3. The look you prefer has no impact on what quality is being used. Graphics are nurmerical and measurable. There is little room for opinion when it comes to someone who understands what they are looking for.

I agree, and there is no objection to this in my post.

4. Square Luminous engine didn't show much that couldn't be done in the current gen. The geometry was mostly simplistic and the effects have all been done before in current gen games. All it really had to show for itself was that it was a slight bit more diverse than the Crystal Engine.

Wow, really? No game on current gen even comes close to that demo. 





My Music