Andrespetmonkey said: Conegamer said: Well, there's no real surprise here. The only people who disagreed were 'anonymous' sources. Everyone who was actually named who spoke about the WiiU knew it would be much more powerful. I mean, 2GB RAM? Modern GPU? All we need is the clock speeds for the CPU to confirm it, but so far it's looking very powerful indeed. It's 1.5 gb RAM. But yeah, it's clearly going to be more powerful than this gen. The real question is how will it compare to Orbis and Durango, and I think it's unlikely that the Wii U will be close to achieving what these other 2 will (physics, graphics etc.). I think it'll probably be able to run the same games, but with a lot of drawbacks. That's mostly speculation though.

People always mention physics as a result of technical ability. I don't get it. What the Hell is physics and why do you need more power to handle it? How complex do you need your physics to be? I've always thought physics was something limited by developer ability, not hardware ability. Similar to AI. And to be honest, I have never played a game that made me say "oh my Dear Lord! Look at those physics!". Same with AI. I have also never seen a reviewer praising physics. Same with AI.

Aielyn said: Andrespetmonkey said: It's 1.5 gb RAM. No, it's 2 GB RAM (according to rumours). Even if a portion of it is "dedicated to the OS", it doesn't mean it isn't there. I recall reading someone saying that Nintendo usually puts more RAM in the actual console than they do in the initial dev kits. I think they said it's usually double. Will be interesting to see if it's true.

Pretty sure Nintendo confirmed 1.5gb. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=144093

"Up to 3GB of main memory (CAT-DEVs only). Note: retail machine will have half devkit memory

Please note that the quantity of memory available from the Cafe SDK and Operating System may vary."

spurgeonryan said: With in the past 24 hours this has gone up and down. From the screenshots that I have seen and video it looks as good, maybe a bit better than the 360 and PS3. I am lost when it comes to specs. But this is getting to be a bit much. Every week the Wii U is either less powerful, as powerful, or more powerful. Nintendo is driving everyone crazy! They should just come out and say "The Wii U is a little stronger than current Gen Consoles."

There's people (not members of this forum but so called journalists and media, and of course anonymous developers) that even with Nintendo giving away an in-depth description of WiiU's technical specifications that will countinue to despise the WiiU as less powerful or on par than the current HD consoles... until the PS4/nextbox are announced.

Then, miraculously, it will be stronger than the PS3/xbox360 but still far, far away from the monsters that will be PS4/nextbox.

Conegamer said: Andrespetmonkey said: Conegamer said: Well, there's no real surprise here. The only people who disagreed were 'anonymous' sources. Everyone who was actually named who spoke about the WiiU knew it would be much more powerful. I mean, 2GB RAM? Modern GPU? All we need is the clock speeds for the CPU to confirm it, but so far it's looking very powerful indeed. It's 1.5 gb RAM. But yeah, it's clearly going to be more powerful than this gen. The real question is how will it compare to Orbis and Durango, and I think it's unlikely that the Wii U will be close to achieving what these other 2 will (physics, graphics etc.). I think it'll probably be able to run the same games, but with a lot of drawbacks. That's mostly speculation though. I thought it was 3GB RAM with dev. kits, half in retail versions, and then 1/2GB for the OS?  In addition, Nintendo aren't stupid enough to pull another Wii and be miles behind in terms of technical ability next-gen, and Sony/MS can't afford to make a loss on the system. So expect next-gen to be like GC/PS2/Xbox, minor differences, even if the WiiU is behind. As such, it'll likely get most of the multiplat ports.

First bit is correct, but it was 512mb for OS, which is rumoured, and could still be included in that 1.5gb, or just untrue since it hasn't been confirmed. Either way, I bet Durango/Orbis will have double that and will certainly have better CPUs, but it'll be the GPUs that dictate just how wide the gap is.

My prediction on this thread is that it'll end up like that other thread about Wii U's graphics.... Oh mah gosh. xD

Jay520 said: Andrespetmonkey said: Conegamer said: Well, there's no real surprise here. The only people who disagreed were 'anonymous' sources. Everyone who was actually named who spoke about the WiiU knew it would be much more powerful. I mean, 2GB RAM? Modern GPU? All we need is the clock speeds for the CPU to confirm it, but so far it's looking very powerful indeed. It's 1.5 gb RAM. But yeah, it's clearly going to be more powerful than this gen. The real question is how will it compare to Orbis and Durango, and I think it's unlikely that the Wii U will be close to achieving what these other 2 will (physics, graphics etc.). I think it'll probably be able to run the same games, but with a lot of drawbacks. That's mostly speculation though. People always mention physics as a result of technical ability. I don't get it. What the Hell is physics and why do you need more power to handle it? How complex do you need your physics to be? I've always thought physics was something limited by developer ability, not hardware ability. Similar to AI. And to be honest, I have never played a game that made me say "oh my Dear Lord! Look at those physics!". Same with AI. I have also never seen a reviewer praising physics. Same with AI.

as more complicated they make the physics as more data the console has to calculate. and you never read about that? physics are a huge part of racing games or games like battlefield. almost every review is talking about that. and ai is also a huge part, as example also in racing games. just play forza 4 and one thing as good as the game is, is very obviously, the other drivers are a little bit stupid and don't act very logical sometimes.

or halo as example got a lot of praise for enemies ai (and cod exactly the opposite) and some not so nice words about some friends ai as example the drivers ai when you let someone else drive the warthog to be able to shoot. i believe killzone has also good ai. when you play an ego-shooter with god ai and then with stupid ai it looks so bad how these idiots act in the bad ai game.

or have you seen as example heavy rain? there is not even really ai in the game. if you do something, you will always get exactly the same result. if you push this and that button this or that will happen and the enemie won't do something else because he doesn't have ai. put a lot of ai in the game and watch how the graphics will go down then.

you read these things in many reviews and they are very noticable.

Wii U look Brillant... but nintendo need to launch core game or new IP
whill be great full support from Retro Studios -Monolith Soft-Intelligent Systems-

Jay520 said: Andrespetmonkey said: Conegamer said: Well, there's no real surprise here. The only people who disagreed were 'anonymous' sources. Everyone who was actually named who spoke about the WiiU knew it would be much more powerful. I mean, 2GB RAM? Modern GPU? All we need is the clock speeds for the CPU to confirm it, but so far it's looking very powerful indeed. It's 1.5 gb RAM. But yeah, it's clearly going to be more powerful than this gen. The real question is how will it compare to Orbis and Durango, and I think it's unlikely that the Wii U will be close to achieving what these other 2 will (physics, graphics etc.). I think it'll probably be able to run the same games, but with a lot of drawbacks. That's mostly speculation though. People always mention physics as a result of technical ability. I don't get it. What the Hell is physics and why do you need more power to handle it? How complex do you need your physics to be? I've always thought physics was something limited by developer ability, not hardware ability. Similar to AI. And to be honest, I have never played a game that made me say "oh my Dear Lord! Look at those physics!". Same with AI. I have also never seen a reviewer praising physics. Same with AI.

The physics in Crysis and Uncharted 2 blew me away when I first saw them, and were better than anything I'd seen previously. Same goes for HL2. It's probably a mixture of both technical ability and the developers ability, like anything to a point, but I'n not so sure. I have noticed progression with better hardware, though. Definetely. Look at destructible maps or objects in games over the gens and you'll see a huge difference imo.

Jay520 said: People always mention physics as a result of technical ability. I don't get it. What the Hell is physics and why do you need more power to handle it? How complex do you need your physics to be? I've always thought physics was something limited by developer ability, not hardware ability. Similar to AI. And to be honest, I have never played a game that made me say "oh my Dear Lord! Look at those physics!". Same with AI. I have also never seen a reviewer praising physics. Same with AI.

Without going into much detail, as others already answered with examples, physics are limited by the hardware because they are "simply" mathematical formulas.

The better the hardware, the faster and more quantity of calculations can be done at the same time resulting in a better representation of real world physics.

That's why some use P-100 and their physics to dismiss the ones saying that WiiU's CPU is weaker than the one in current gen consoles.

crissindahouse said: as more complicated they make the physics as more data the console has to calculate. and you never read about that? physics are a huge part of racing games or games like battlefield. almost every review is talking about that. and ai is also a huge part, as example also in racing games. just play forza 4 and one thing as good as the game is, is very obvisiously, the other drivers are a little bit stupid and don't act very logical sometimes. or halo as example got a lot of praise for enemies ai (and cod exactly the opposite) and some not so nice words about some friends ai as example the drivers ai when you let someone else drive the warthog to be able to shoot. i believe killzone has also good ai. when ou play a ego-shooter with god ai and then with stupid ai it looks so bad how these idiots act in the bad ai game. or have you seen as example heavy rain? there is not even really ai in the game. if you do something, you will always get exactly the same result. if you push this and that button this or that will happen and the enemie won't do something else because he doesn't have ai. you read these things in many reviews and they are very noticable.

So destructible environments fall under physics? That would make a lot of sense. Thanks. But for something like racing physics, I don't see limited by power tbh. Doesn't a game GT5 have the same physics as GT4? I believe even reviewers mentioned this.

Also, I've played Killzone and Halo and I didn't think either had amazing AI. When you had an advantage, the acted defensive. When you have a disadvantage, the acted offensive. Of course this is just the opinion of someone uneducated on this topic.