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

xLeftyx on 13 July 2012

These back and forth talk of Wii U's power is starting to get tiresome.



Around the Network
Lafiel on 13 July 2012
Jay520 said:


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.

Now that's funny considering most supercomputers around the world are working on physics calculations. Ofcourse a video game doesn't need to be anywhere as preceise as a scientific calculation to make something seem "real" although it's just a rough approximation of real world physics.

Still, it can be infinitely complex.. for example in the past when you shot a bottle the dev might have included a precanned animation how the bottle breaks and it will break the same way every time (depending on the amount of animations ofc). That's not physics, but nowadays devs can give that bottle the property glass and then the physics engine will determine while the game is running (procedurally) how the bottle can break. If the hardware was strong enough it could calculate the angle of impact, how many shards/fragments are produced, their shapes/sizes , how these collide with each other and with objects in the world, how the wind/gravity/each particles aerodynamics influence their pathes, how sun rays pass through these shards and how the rays are refracted and reflected between them and so on and so on.

Although games really just need a basic version of that we aren't even on a level to produce enough particles in a explosion yet to make it seem "real" as the collisions with each other and objects in the world (even with a really basic calculation) use up soo much power.



Play4Fun on 13 July 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
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."


Nintendo didn't confirm anything. That was from the leaked early target specs.

And aielyn is right in that there have been rumours that since then Nintendo might have bumped the final retail  RAM up to 2GB.



Andrespetmonkey on 13 July 2012
Play4Fun said:
Andrespetmonkey said:


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."


Nintendo didn't confirm anything. That was from the leaked early target specs.

And aielyn is right in that there have been rumours that since then Nintendo might have bumped the final retail  RAM up to 2GB.

Oh cool. Thanks.



My Music

Jay520 on 13 July 2012
Lafiel said:
Jay520 said:


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.

Now that's funny considering most supercomputers around the world are working on physics calculations. Ofcourse a video game doesn't need to be anywhere as preceise as a scientific calculation to make something seem "real" although it's just a rough approximation of real world physics.

Still, it can be infinitely complex.. for example in the past when you shot a bottle the dev might have included a precanned animation how the bottle breaks and it will break the same way every time (depending on the amount of animations ofc). That's not physics, but nowadays devs can give that bottle the property glass and then the physics engine will determine while the game is running (procedurally) how the bottle can break. If the hardware was strong enough it could calculate the angle of impact, how many shards/fragments are produced, their shapes/sizes , how these collide with each other and with objects in the world, how the wind/gravity/each particles aerodynamics influence their pathes, how sun rays pass through these shards and how the rays are refracted and reflected between them and so on and so on.

Although games really just need a basic version of that we aren't even on a level to produce enough particles in a explosion yet to make it seem "real" as the collisions with each other and objects in the world (even with a really basic calculation) use up soo much power.



point noted.

Around the Network
Pavolink on 13 July 2012

The real question is if this will make coffee.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


xLeftyx on 13 July 2012
Lafiel said:
Jay520 said:

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.

Now that's funny considering most supercomputers around the world are working on physics calculations. Ofcourse a video game doesn't need to be anywhere as preceise as a scientific calculation to make something seem "real" although it's just a rough approximation of real world physics.

Still, it can be infinitely complex.. for example in the past when you shot a bottle the dev might have included a precanned animation how the bottle breaks and it will break the same way every time (depending on the amount of animations ofc). That's not physics, but nowadays devs can give that bottle the property glass and then the physics engine will determine while the game is running (procedurally) how the bottle can break. If the hardware was strong enough it could calculate the angle of impact, how many shards/fragments are produced, their shapes/sizes , how these collide with each other and with objects in the world, how the wind/gravity/each particles aerodynamics influence their pathes, how sun rays pass through these shards and how the rays are refracted and reflected between them and so on and so on.

Although games really just need a basic version of that we aren't even on a level to produce enough particles in a explosion yet to make it seem "real" as the collisions with each other and objects in the world (even with a really basic calculation) use up soo much power.

Real time raytracing could be possible next-gen



Lafiel on 13 July 2012
xLeftyx said:
Lafiel said:
Jay520 said:

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.

Now that's funny considering most supercomputers around the world are working on physics calculations. Ofcourse a video game doesn't need to be anywhere as preceise as a scientific calculation to make something seem "real" although it's just a rough approximation of real world physics.

Still, it can be infinitely complex.. for example in the past when you shot a bottle the dev might have included a precanned animation how the bottle breaks and it will break the same way every time (depending on the amount of animations ofc). That's not physics, but nowadays devs can give that bottle the property glass and then the physics engine will determine while the game is running (procedurally) how the bottle can break. If the hardware was strong enough it could calculate the angle of impact, how many shards/fragments are produced, their shapes/sizes , how these collide with each other and with objects in the world, how the wind/gravity/each particles aerodynamics influence their pathes, how sun rays pass through these shards and how the rays are refracted and reflected between them and so on and so on.

Although games really just need a basic version of that we aren't even on a level to produce enough particles in a explosion yet to make it seem "real" as the collisions with each other and objects in the world (even with a really basic calculation) use up soo much power.

Real time raytracing could be possible next-gen

yea, I sure hope so, but I seriously doubt any of the consoles will have hw close to what they used in that presentation



famousringo on 13 July 2012

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, I can't believe people are still talking about this as if it actually matters.

What matters:

1. The tablet controller and what new gameplay experiences it might offer.
2. The robustness and convenience of Nintendo's online market and network.
3. The software support that Nintendo and 3rd parties will bring to the platform.

What doesn't matter:

1. However many jigga-whats the Wii U produces.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Play4Fun on 13 July 2012
famousringo said:
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, I can't believe people are still talking about this as if it actually matters.

What matters:

1. The tablet controller and what new gameplay experiences it might offer.
2. The robustness and convenience of Nintendo's online market and network.
3. The software support that Nintendo and 3rd parties will bring to the platform.

What doesn't matter:

1. However many jigga-whats the Wii U produces.


Most people only care because they want assurance that WiiU will be able to get next gen ports. Once that is 100% confirmed, it won't matter much anymore.