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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U is 'definitely more powerful than 360 and PS3' - Scribblenauts dev

Conegamer on 13 July 2012
NintendoPie said:
My prediction on this thread is that it'll end up like that other thread about Wii U's graphics.... Oh mah gosh. xD


Heh. I think that may well be the only accurate prediction in this thread :P

 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Around the Network
Jay520 on 13 July 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
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 unlkely 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.



Since I have also played Uncharted 2, can you explain why Uncharted 2 had great physics so i can get a better understanding of it. I understand destructable* environments, but UC2 didn't have destructable environments. (Though it did have destructable objects).

*BTW, did you know 'destructable' wasn't a word? Or at least my phone thinks so.

NintendoPie on 13 July 2012
Conegamer said:
NintendoPie said:
My prediction on this thread is that it'll end up like that other thread about Wii U's graphics.... Oh mah gosh. xD


Heh. I think that may well be the only accurate prediction in this thread :P

Well that's about all we can really was right now. :/



Conegamer on 13 July 2012
NintendoPie said:
Conegamer said:
NintendoPie said:
My prediction on this thread is that it'll end up like that other thread about Wii U's graphics.... Oh mah gosh. xD


Heh. I think that may well be the only accurate prediction in this thread :P

Well that's about all we can really was right now. :/



Indeed. Why not just wait a few months, and actually play the games? O.o



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Andrespetmonkey on 13 July 2012
Jay520 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

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.



Since I have also played Uncharted 2, can you explain why Uncharted 2 had great physics so i can get a better understanding of it.

Honestly no, I can't explain it, I don't know how it works, I can only observe. Everything seems to act more realistically/interacts with more objects etc. things like that, but this is just describing what I've seen. Here's a good scene showing off the physics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWi7nG_45BU I'm sure the actual building falling is scripted but all the furniture and stuff inside is what I'm talking about. 

I understand destructable* environments, but UC2 didn't have destructable environments. (Though it did have destructable objects).

Yup, I know, I was talking about Crysis regarding destructible environments. Though now I come to think of it UC3 has 1 or 2 areas that were kindoff destructible. Like in the abandoned desert town/village you could knock quite a few pillars and old crumbling structures down.

*BTW, did you know 'destructable' wasn't a word? Or at least my phone thinks so. 

Lol. Googled it, it's a word, I just spelt it wrong. Destructible*





My Music

Around the Network
crissindahouse on 13 July 2012
Jay520 said:
 

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.

at least halo or killzone ai is better than cod's and if they would put less calculating in that they would have more power for something else. and sure, ai could be still much much better, that's what many hope for next gen.

and i remember that someone from polyphony said once about gt4 that the game didn't have damages because the ps2 had too less calculating power. so yes, the missing power was the reason for no damage calculatings. he said they could make it but it wouldn't be good enough because a good damage model needs too much power.



Jay520 on 13 July 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
snip because I broke the thread


I don't know, I can understand destructible environments. But things like objects falling over, objects falling over, etc. I don't think that will require a lot of resources. I also don't think a lot of games will utilise fully destructible environments next gen. Now relating to the topic, I don't think the Wii U will be very disadvantaged in terms of physics because i don't believe most developers will utilise so much physics. But again, im very uneducated on the topic, so i would be surprised if i was wrong. But i guess I will just have to wait and see. I'll watch that video when I get to a pc.

lol it should be destruct + able like every other verb turned into an adjective. This English language us so dumb. Which reminds me of this informing post from last year: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4292554

Jay520 on 13 July 2012
crissindahouse said:
Jay520 said:
 

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 Isomeone uneducated on this topic.

at least halo or killzone ai is better than cod's and if they would put less calculating in that they would have more power for something else. and sure, ai could be still much much better, that's what many hope for next gen.

and i remember that someone from polyphony said once about gt4 that the game didn't have damages because the ps2 had too less calculating power. so yes, the missing power was the reason for no damage calculatings. he said they could make it but it wouldn't be good enough because a good damage model needs too much power.



If Kllzone & Halo's A.I. require power, then shouldn't they be lacking in other areas? Shouldn't Killzone not be one of the best graphical games out there? And shouldn't Halo not be able to handle such large open worlds? And Halo 4 looks to be a graphical beast and have a huge open world. It seems a bit strange that games with the best a.I. also have enough power remaining for the best graphics. Also, if physics require a lot of power, how does battlefield 3 have huge worlds, amazing graphics, AND destructible environments? This all implies that physics doesnt really require a lot of power. Again, just my perspective.

osed125 on 13 July 2012

This doesn't matter because the next xbox and Ps4 will have an AMD Radeon HD 6990, 16 GB of RAM, 5.6 GHz of clock speed, and will have real time holographic games where you can play your favorite FPS by shooting a holographic model of Hitler. 



Nintendo and PC gamer

crissindahouse on 13 July 2012

@ jay

even developers talk often about these things. just imagine a game with 200 foes at the same time. they are all always stupid like hell. now think about all of them acting like halo enemies. yes they are also not super intelligent but the difference is there. so, i hope to see much better ai for halo 5 and i hope to see games with many enemies with ai of games we have nowadays with only a few enemies at the screen.

and the reason why the best games have always the best physics is maybe because they put 3x as much money in the development, have the best tools and whatever. i hope to see the best ai and physics we have nowadays in the not so good games next gen and the best games next gen with much better physics than we have nowadays.

and physics is not only destcrution. it is so much more in a game. light refraction, physics of the character model for more realistic movement and so on. at least i put all these thing sin my definition for physics, other people might see other things as physics if they talk about them in games.