@Epic cutting edge. I think them being on PC only if that were their attitude is a stretch, certainly it isn't a black on white issue. Something pulls them into the console space and it's 1) Revenue (as you've put it, in a grey spectrum), 2) joining the market where the effort is (not on PC). It's just that even though Nintendo has come closer toward cutting edge, Epic has not budged due to a difference in philosophy and them not believing Nintendo has the participation of the industry (just yet). It's my understanding of it, and is not a novel concept when it comes to Nintendo.

@Wii leap. Tri was just an example, and Libro has better ones from Japan I've never played, and he's more technically savy than I am (though I am no slouch). I said "out of the gate"? Since the begining I've been talking about the discrepancy between specs, launch graphics, and potential. I was just arguing that the Wii was a jump, the WiiU will be a bigger one. Quite simple pezus.

@signs. I don't remember the Wii being overpriced, what's your benchmark. Regardless, the PS3-upgrade console concept you bring up is an interesting point, and again I see it bring an upgrade like Vita was to PSP, that's what I see. Join that to the fact that blu-ray is now common, the cell has some years behind it, and yeah they can make quite a decent console for 400$, no doubt. Maybe thanks to cell it can even beat the PC, but not the nextbox so keep 'em separated.

@what we're talking about. Yes, we are talking about graphics, and graphics in light of how much devs can make use of graphical capabilities in a system, not one without the other. So no, what you see now of WiiU is not enough and won't be enough until we see a dev make real use of the graphical capabilities of the system, like Factor5 did with the cube. So no.

@watchdog. Yes, and I believe that had a WiiU version been given proper time and care, it could pull off most of what's in the video given what we know of the WiiU (again, the edumakated guess).

How did you come up with the number of 12000 out of 12million achieved? I would say the xbox and GC were on par depending on what you were trying to accomplish on the hardware, the thing about the GC is that Nintendo was very good at not creating a bottleneck other than the storage part on that console, so everything worked together really well while the xbox was basically a poor man's PC with a lot of bottlenecks.

The CPU numbers don't mean shit Selnor, we had this discussion years back as I tried to explain to you what the numbers really mean, since we are in today's world, I'll tell you this, try to search google for benchmarks on a AMD quad core Bulldozer FX at 3.1 Ghz vs a Core 2 Quad at 3.1 Ghz vs a Core i7 at 3.1Ghz, they are all quad cores running at the same clock rate, but the i7(or the i5) in any variation will rape the other 2 so bad that it's almost WTF is going on bad. That's the same idea when you are talking about the lower clock Power PC vs the higher clock modified P3, Power PC chips were always known for their efficiency in the computing field back in the days because RISC was just that much more superior to CISC in the olden days.

I will also tell you why the xbox wasn't able to handle the game you were discussing, the reason being the difference inbetween a programmable pipeline vs a fixed pipeline(more commonly known as shaders these days due to d3d.) The reason why gc was able to push out those numbers is because those were fixed built in functions that can be executed extremely fast on a hardware level while not hinder performance as much. The xbox gpu programmable pipelines, while more flexible, was basically d3d shader model 2.0, and is extremely limiting at the time, not to mention the technology was still so new that most games didn't use it due to lack of understanding of the techniques required to fully optimize the code for a game as such to run at the same level as the gc version, not to mention the xbox's ram was really really gimp too, it was a really bottlenecked machine so it would never have hit the peak number on paper and would be off by a long shot, but it was definitely easier to port PC games to it, that's for sure. Look at it this way, the 360 came out much less bottlenecked so they learned their lesson, improvements were made and that's the important part.

and wearrive back to equare 1. The only factual games that were not capable on another system wass Half Life 2 and Doom 3. Well Doom 3 was capable on GC if scaled down from  its Xbox counterpart.  Thanks Mr Carmack from that quote.

Again, we have still the odd few who hold the very faint GC candleligt online even though this debate was hilariously crused by Beyond 3d and Lens Of Truth.

LOL, faith in Human race lost.

If you want to move away from graphics for a second and understand why HL2 and Doom 3 were not on GC from another angle or why it would have to be tuned down, then it makes perfect sense, Nintendo royally fucked up on using mini DVDs instead of full fledged DVDs, and they are fucking stupid for it, at least they are not making that same mistake with the Wii U with the non licensed blu ray and went DVD with the Wii, so they are learning as well.

Ultimately, the storage is what really fucked the GC, not the graphical capabilities, I mean shit, in many cases it didn't even manage to match up to the PS2 version of games on features due to their dumb decision.

Thanks for having faith in what I have to say HappyD, but really, I'm privy to the same info as everyone else.  I'm not as tech-savvy as many people around here (HappySquirrel, Viper1, etc), but my friend is, and his reasoning echoes what they say:  It is exceedingly unlikely that we will see another "Wii to PS360" gap with "WiiU to Durango/Orbis".

The Wii was a beefed-up Gamecube (more RAM, etc), but lacked any real changes to the graphical architecture.  The WiiU, however has modern architecture, has a GPU two gens ahead of PS360, and from what I've heard, 2 gigs of RAM, with 0.5 gigs dedicated to the OS, which gives it 3x the RAM of the PS360.  The Wii didn't have anywhere near this leap over the PS2/GC/Xbox.  In order for the WiiU to be thoroughly dwarfed by its 8th gen competition, it would have to be more lacking than what we know it to be.  The engines that people point to (UE4, CE3) are supremely scalable, meaning that we won't see another case of WiiU being ignored regarding multiplats... even if Durango and Orbis can run them closer to their PC counterparts.  I say "closer" because Epic has already come out and stated that they want Durango and Orbis to have more power than they do currently:

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps4-news/27.html

When they debuted Fortnite at Comicon, Epic also basically said that if you want true next gen, you're gonna need a high end PC.  The only way we will see WiiU dwarfed the way the Wii was is if Durango and Orbis launch much later than 2013.

Regarding the whole "WiiU is only slightly more powerful than current HD consoles" because of what we've seen thus far, consider this evidence:

Xbox 360 launch games:

Xbox 360 only one year later:

Now consider WiiU launch games:

... and imagine what games like Zelda HD, Metroid Prime 4 or Super Mario Galaxy 3 will look like in a few years.

He didn't say they needed to be scaled down. He said it would run just fine but that there wasn't enough storage capacity. I told you this yesterday. Stop making things up.

ya right let's see a god of war 3 or the wii u hold 125 players in one game match like "MAG". I find it funny that people dont think the ps3 has been used to it's fullest. Games like Uncharted 2 and god of war 3, Gran turismo 5, MAG, Infamous, resistance 3. These games have all pushed the ps3 to the limit in capacity and what a game system is capable of. I give xbox/ microsoft credit for there games but they are software giants and use there software to make there 360 go. PS3 is all system guts and developers using that tech. I have yet to see any game except a pc game were 125 players are on one board playing at the same time. MAG has 125 players in one match that is an amazing feet for a game. MAG is a fantastic game I still play it almost everyday. Gran turismo 5 even the developer said he could barely fit anymore in the game. 1000's of cars and real life tracks with realistic graphics even forza cannot compete and boast that. It would take multiple disc's for forza to have 1000's of cars on 360.I think the ps3 does not get enough credit for graphics and the great games in its library they are truly epic.

The Xbox is obviously more powerful and this IS coming from someone who only owned a GC (and absolutely hates the original Xbox). The specs prove it, multiplats prove it, exclusives prove it... what more do you need? I remember feeling nothing but envy when I saw how good the graphics were on my friend's Xbox.

That's not saying GC games looked bad, I'd argue the GC still had some of the best looking games of the gen. It was still a really powerful system after all.

None of that proves anything. You are saying x = y like its fact without saying how x = y. Preference and opinion do not decide or influcence technical capability in any way.

The specs were actually higher in the GC but most people don't know how to read the specs, because they have no understanding of the differences technology in the systems.

The GC was more powerful. The problem was that it had storage limitations and the hardware was more complex and expensive to program for than the Xbox. Making games for the Xbox and its simplified PC architecture, on the other hand, was extremely easy inexpensive. It is the same situation with the Wii because it uses the same type of tech as the GC.

Most devs lacked the skill to work with it and didn't want to invest the money to learn or the time to program it well enough to achieve high level effects. Most of what it got were PS2 ports at higher frame rates. The few games that actually utilized the hardware properly pulled off more technocly than any games on the other consoles. Like  P.N. 03, RE4, The Rogue Squadrons, Mario Sunshine, Starfox Adventure, Metroid Prime 2, F-Zero GX. None of those game could run on the other consoles without downgrades.

Capcom had to reduce the texture quality, cut the poygon count down to less than half and remove most of the effects just to get RE4 to run on the PS2. The devs who made the Rogue Squardons tried to port it to the Xbox but they would have had to make the same type of cuts so they scrapped it.

This is what the Gamecube could do but few games every utilized any of it.

This video goes more in depth with it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE85lOieDnw