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

Forums - Nintendo - Wii U specs are surprising, says Sonic developer, specifically the GPU and memory

Soundwave on 24 August 2012

 

lilbroex said:
Soundwave said:
lilbroex said:
ghettoglamour said:
phenom08 said:
@ghettoglamour
1. According to you then the first uncharted was a good representation of the PS3 power instead of uncharted 3. You are using launch games to judge the WiiU, which is obviously flawed.

2. I bet before the Wii you weren't saying this, but with hindsight you wanna praise the Wii. What would you know of innovation? I could careless of what you see as innovation. You probably thought the Vita was innovative?


1. the first PS3 games looked much better than the latest PS2 games. The first PS2 games looked much better than the latest PS1 games. The first WiiU games look just as good as the latest PS3 games, in some cases not even that.

2. I was a rather casual gamer back when this gen launched and I was indeed pretty interested in the Wii. The Vita does nothing really innovative, but its way more powerful than last gen portables and that way it does provide or at least has the potential to offer a better gaming experience than PSP/DS.

The WiiU though lacks both innovation and a big technology leap. Therefore it fails to attract me and as you see many other gamers. (at this point, wont say never)

Correction. The first Wii U games look WAY better than the latest PS3 games. The ports all look better. The Exslusives look even better than the ports.


I'm not really sure what you're even looking at. The best looking games at E3 between the PS3/360/Wii U were "The Last of Us" and "Halo 4" ... by about a good country mile. 

Not really. You may like the design of those games but on a pure technical level, it went to P-100

 

Looks better than anything I've seen on the PS3/360

You may want to try playing other PS3/360 games. P-100 has some nice color and some decent things going on, but lol, seriously ... games like Assassin's Creed 3 and Zombi U are probably pushing the Wii U much harder than P-100. 

This is MG Rising from the same developer (Platinum Games) on the PS3/360:



Around the Network
oniyide on 24 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
teigaga said:

Always look at games built from the ground up to judge a systems power, they're not going to creat new assets to exploit the power of amore  powerfull system but they will have smother textures, frame-rate, better ant-aliasing. The Wii U can be judged on games like zombie U, Pikim 3, and Project P.

All of the 360 ground up launch titles PGR3, Perfect dark Zero all Kameo looked a good step above  Xbox 1 titles. From my experiences I've found that if you can't see a difference at launch, then you won't see to much of a difference during the rest of the life. Also consoles which make smaller leaps also see far smaller improvements over there life, because developers are already used to working within similar technological bondaries, so what everyone has learned through optimising games on 360/ps3 will allow them max out the potential of the Wii U quicker then a systems which presents new standards of art assets and particle simulation etc.

My point was that I don't think we've seen anything yet that I really think is representative of what the Wii U can do ...

I'm not expecting the Wii U to be a "generational" leap in graphics ahead of the HD consoles, but I also don't think that any of the Wii U exclusives we've seen are designed to be graphical show-pieces. When Nintendo shows of Metroid or Zelda (or something) at their event in September I hope to be able to say "That is a game that is clearly representative of the system". Essentially, games like Project P-100 and Pikmin 3 look fantastic (in my opinion) but I also wouldn't expect similar games to look much better regardless of what the underlying hardware is. Zombie U looks "good" but it is a rushed launch game that had a very significant direction change mid development and I have doubts that improving visuals was #1 on their priority list.

I expect that Nintendo, or a third party publisher, has something (relatively) impressive they want to show off that will release next spring/summer that will (likely) be announced relatively soon.


I like this guy, he seems to be one of the few fans who makes some sense



lilbroex on 24 August 2012
Soundwave said:
lilbroex said:
Soundwave said:
lilbroex said:
ghettoglamour said:
phenom08 said:
@ghettoglamour
1. According to you then the first uncharted was a good representation of the PS3 power instead of uncharted 3. You are using launch games to judge the WiiU, which is obviously flawed.

2. I bet before the Wii you weren't saying this, but with hindsight you wanna praise the Wii. What would you know of innovation? I could careless of what you see as innovation. You probably thought the Vita was innovative?


1. the first PS3 games looked much better than the latest PS2 games. The first PS2 games looked much better than the latest PS1 games. The first WiiU games look just as good as the latest PS3 games, in some cases not even that.

2. I was a rather casual gamer back when this gen launched and I was indeed pretty interested in the Wii. The Vita does nothing really innovative, but its way more powerful than last gen portables and that way it does provide or at least has the potential to offer a better gaming experience than PSP/DS.

The WiiU though lacks both innovation and a big technology leap. Therefore it fails to attract me and as you see many other gamers. (at this point, wont say never)

Correction. The first Wii U games look WAY better than the latest PS3 games. The ports all look better. The Exslusives look even better than the ports.


I'm not really sure what you're even looking at. The best looking games at E3 between the PS3/360/Wii U were "The Last of Us" and "Halo 4" ... by about a good country mile. 

Not really. You may like the design of those games but on a pure technical level, it went to P-100

 

Looks better than anything I've seen on the PS3/360

 

You may want to try playing other PS3/360 games. P-100 has some nice color and some decent things going on, but lol, seriously ... games like Assassin's Creed 3 and Zombi U are probably pushing the Wii U much harder than P-100. 

No, P-100 is just fine.

You posting a pic of two undetailed, individual, irrelvent npc modals doesn't change anything.

There are dozens of them on screen at once with customizable armor and equipment that you can pick up from the environment. It runs at 60 FPS. The environment geometry is way beyond what I see on the PS3/360 in the best games. The texture quality and specials effect exceed anything I've seen on the PS3.

Nitpicking at the one nook of the game does not overried all that it does which the PS3 and 360  could not.



JWeinCom on 24 August 2012
teigaga said:


I don't think having two different consoles would be a very good idea.  Fragmenting your market is a poor strategy because it halves your install base.  If Microsoft is trying to go for the casual market, how can they do that with a very expensive high spec console?  I think that 300 dollars is about the upper limit for a new console to a casual gamer.  $400 puts you solely in the hardcore range.  As for the next generation being longer than this one, it's hard to say, but I'm not sure about that one either.   I think that new hardware is essential in keeping people interested and engaged in your brand.  I think you need a new console every 5 or so years to energize your fanbase.  With new technologies popping up, a trend that will continue in coming years, I don't think that a long lifespan is necessarily a good thing.

With Sony, I think it's really a matter of survival.  I just flat out don't think can financially afford releasing another PS3.  Holding out a little longer is an interesting idea, but it could lead to some of the issues that they saw with the X-Box 360.

But, let's say theoretically that the consoles do go for specs approaching top of the line PCs.  How much better will the graphics look?  They'd probably look about as good as modern PC games on the highest settings, and I don't think that leap will be enough to really grab gamers' attention.  Moreover, I don't think that even that kind of jump will prevent competent ports to the Wii U.  

I guess we'll see sometime next year who's right and who's wrong, but I don't personally see the Wii U being blown out of the water.  I'm expecting a PS2-X-Box style gap.  Maybe DC-X-Box at most. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUhraVG7Ow

Possibly this. I was blown away from the gameplay demontration of starwars 1313 (not the trailer), especilally the partical effects on the smoke/fire and character models.This game is being developed as multiplatform across current gen and its not even using unreal engine 4, so I Think we may be suprised by what what next gen could potentially bring. You also have to remember that alot of the current high end PC games have loose optimisations. When development teams utilise such power on a didcated system (set CPU/GPU) the results will be noticably better.

I also think that the closer step towards realism will be key in next-gen. Just as motion controls and online multiplayer opened the door for growth, I think fully believable charaters and shiny effects will do a similar thing next gen. I know so many people who are impressed by CGI trailer but don't actually play games because the games themselfs don't contain the same cinematic quality and character performance. Previous leaps have been impressive by technology of the day but they never really came close to capturing realism.

As for comparing the gap between the systems. The gap between the ps2/ xbox was quite large, I imagine if a game was built to take advantage of the Xbox's power, a ps2 port would require severe optimisation. But I guess if the wii U is the leader, as the ps2 was, then it would alright because games would be made for it 1st and then ported to the next game consoles, or they will at least be made with Wii U in mind. But yeah, I guess we will wait and see.

Personally, the demo for Star Wars 1313 didn't impress me as much as it did others.  It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think that represents enough of a leap for me to go out and buy a new console.  I understand that optimization is important, and it's why the relatively weak (by PC standards) X-Box can still compete with decent PCs.  Even so, I don't see the X-Box 720 or PS4 outperforming a custom made gaming PC.

The gap between the PS2 and X-Box was large (just try playing Sonic Heroes on a PS2) but at the same time, it wasn't large enough to sell the system, and it wasn't large enough to prevent ports across systems.  I don't think a similar gap to that would really hurt the Wii U.



Crono141 on 24 August 2012
JWeinCom said:
teigaga said:


I don't think having two different consoles would be a very good idea.  Fragmenting your market is a poor strategy because it halves your install base.  If Microsoft is trying to go for the casual market, how can they do that with a very expensive high spec console?  I think that 300 dollars is about the upper limit for a new console to a casual gamer.  $400 puts you solely in the hardcore range.  As for the next generation being longer than this one, it's hard to say, but I'm not sure about that one either.   I think that new hardware is essential in keeping people interested and engaged in your brand.  I think you need a new console every 5 or so years to energize your fanbase.  With new technologies popping up, a trend that will continue in coming years, I don't think that a long lifespan is necessarily a good thing.

With Sony, I think it's really a matter of survival.  I just flat out don't think can financially afford releasing another PS3.  Holding out a little longer is an interesting idea, but it could lead to some of the issues that they saw with the X-Box 360.

But, let's say theoretically that the consoles do go for specs approaching top of the line PCs.  How much better will the graphics look?  They'd probably look about as good as modern PC games on the highest settings, and I don't think that leap will be enough to really grab gamers' attention.  Moreover, I don't think that even that kind of jump will prevent competent ports to the Wii U.  

I guess we'll see sometime next year who's right and who's wrong, but I don't personally see the Wii U being blown out of the water.  I'm expecting a PS2-X-Box style gap.  Maybe DC-X-Box at most. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUhraVG7Ow

Possibly this. I was blown away from the gameplay demontration of starwars 1313 (not the trailer), especilally the partical effects on the smoke/fire and character models.This game is being developed as multiplatform across current gen and its not even using unreal engine 4, so I Think we may be suprised by what what next gen could potentially bring. You also have to remember that alot of the current high end PC games have loose optimisations. When development teams utilise such power on a didcated system (set CPU/GPU) the results will be noticably better.

I also think that the closer step towards realism will be key in next-gen. Just as motion controls and online multiplayer opened the door for growth, I think fully believable charaters and shiny effects will do a similar thing next gen. I know so many people who are impressed by CGI trailer but don't actually play games because the games themselfs don't contain the same cinematic quality and character performance. Previous leaps have been impressive by technology of the day but they never really came close to capturing realism.

As for comparing the gap between the systems. The gap between the ps2/ xbox was quite large, I imagine if a game was built to take advantage of the Xbox's power, a ps2 port would require severe optimisation. But I guess if the wii U is the leader, as the ps2 was, then it would alright because games would be made for it 1st and then ported to the next game consoles, or they will at least be made with Wii U in mind. But yeah, I guess we will wait and see.

Personally, the demo for Star Wars 1313 didn't impress me as much as it did others.  It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think that represents enough of a leap for me to go out and buy a new console.  I understand that optimization is important, and it's why the relatively weak (by PC standards) X-Box can still compete with decent PCs.  Even so, I don't see the X-Box 720 or PS4 outperforming a custom made gaming PC.

The gap between the PS2 and X-Box was large (just try playing Sonic Heroes on a PS2) but at the same time, it wasn't large enough to sell the system, and it wasn't large enough to prevent ports across systems.  I don't think a similar gap to that would really hurt the Wii U.


This.  This has been all I've been trying to say across two threads.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.

Around the Network
Soundwave on 24 August 2012

I can notice a difference from Star Wars 1313 and Watch Dogs versus PS3/360/Wii U stuff though.

You're right maybe the difference between a Watch Dogs and The Last of Us isn't that big, but it's noticeable for sure.

Nintendo has a lot of issues with the hardcore demographic that extend beyond the chipset though anyway. 



teigaga on 24 August 2012
lilbroex said:
Soundwave said:
lilbroex said:
ghettoglamour said:
phenom08 said:
@ghettoglamour
1. According to you then the first uncharted was a good representation of the PS3 power instead of uncharted 3. You are using launch games to judge the WiiU, which is obviously flawed.

2. I bet before the Wii you weren't saying this, but with hindsight you wanna praise the Wii. What would you know of innovation? I could careless of what you see as innovation. You probably thought the Vita was innovative?


1. the first PS3 games looked much better than the latest PS2 games. The first PS2 games looked much better than the latest PS1 games. The first WiiU games look just as good as the latest PS3 games, in some cases not even that.

2. I was a rather casual gamer back when this gen launched and I was indeed pretty interested in the Wii. The Vita does nothing really innovative, but its way more powerful than last gen portables and that way it does provide or at least has the potential to offer a better gaming experience than PSP/DS.

The WiiU though lacks both innovation and a big technology leap. Therefore it fails to attract me and as you see many other gamers. (at this point, wont say never)

Correction. The first Wii U games look WAY better than the latest PS3 games. The ports all look better. The Exslusives look even better than the ports.


I'm not really sure what you're even looking at. The best looking games at E3 between the PS3/360/Wii U were "The Last of Us" and "Halo 4" ... by about a good country mile. 

Not really. You may like the design of those games but on a pure technical level, it went to P-100

 

Looks better than anything I've seen on the PS3/360

I think its the other way round. P-100 may be the best looking and sharpst. But its consist 90% of block geometry and undetailed, yet shiny textures. Compare this to GOW 3 fight with Chronos. Find a HD vid if you can.

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



DieAppleDie on 24 August 2012

Happy squirrel
"When Nintendo shows of Metroid or Zelda (or something) ...."

theyve already shown a Zelda tech demo that looked awesome
remember how the 2001 Zelda GC demo looked and how Twilight princess looked miles better?
imagine now how the actual ZeldaU game will look....



teigaga on 24 August 2012
Crono141 said:
JWeinCom said:
teigaga said:


I don't think having two different consoles would be a very good idea.  Fragmenting your market is a poor strategy because it halves your install base.  If Microsoft is trying to go for the casual market, how can they do that with a very expensive high spec console?  I think that 300 dollars is about the upper limit for a new console to a casual gamer.  $400 puts you solely in the hardcore range.  As for the next generation being longer than this one, it's hard to say, but I'm not sure about that one either.   I think that new hardware is essential in keeping people interested and engaged in your brand.  I think you need a new console every 5 or so years to energize your fanbase.  With new technologies popping up, a trend that will continue in coming years, I don't think that a long lifespan is necessarily a good thing.

With Sony, I think it's really a matter of survival.  I just flat out don't think can financially afford releasing another PS3.  Holding out a little longer is an interesting idea, but it could lead to some of the issues that they saw with the X-Box 360.

But, let's say theoretically that the consoles do go for specs approaching top of the line PCs.  How much better will the graphics look?  They'd probably look about as good as modern PC games on the highest settings, and I don't think that leap will be enough to really grab gamers' attention.  Moreover, I don't think that even that kind of jump will prevent competent ports to the Wii U.  

I guess we'll see sometime next year who's right and who's wrong, but I don't personally see the Wii U being blown out of the water.  I'm expecting a PS2-X-Box style gap.  Maybe DC-X-Box at most. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUhraVG7Ow

Possibly this. I was blown away from the gameplay demontration of starwars 1313 (not the trailer), especilally the partical effects on the smoke/fire and character models.This game is being developed as multiplatform across current gen and its not even using unreal engine 4, so I Think we may be suprised by what what next gen could potentially bring. You also have to remember that alot of the current high end PC games have loose optimisations. When development teams utilise such power on a didcated system (set CPU/GPU) the results will be noticably better.

I also think that the closer step towards realism will be key in next-gen. Just as motion controls and online multiplayer opened the door for growth, I think fully believable charaters and shiny effects will do a similar thing next gen. I know so many people who are impressed by CGI trailer but don't actually play games because the games themselfs don't contain the same cinematic quality and character performance. Previous leaps have been impressive by technology of the day but they never really came close to capturing realism.

As for comparing the gap between the systems. The gap between the ps2/ xbox was quite large, I imagine if a game was built to take advantage of the Xbox's power, a ps2 port would require severe optimisation. But I guess if the wii U is the leader, as the ps2 was, then it would alright because games would be made for it 1st and then ported to the next game consoles, or they will at least be made with Wii U in mind. But yeah, I guess we will wait and see.

Personally, the demo for Star Wars 1313 didn't impress me as much as it did others.  It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think that represents enough of a leap for me to go out and buy a new console.  I understand that optimization is important, and it's why the relatively weak (by PC standards) X-Box can still compete with decent PCs.  Even so, I don't see the X-Box 720 or PS4 outperforming a custom made gaming PC.

The gap between the PS2 and X-Box was large (just try playing Sonic Heroes on a PS2) but at the same time, it wasn't large enough to sell the system, and it wasn't large enough to prevent ports across systems.  I don't think a similar gap to that would really hurt the Wii U.


This.  This has been all I've been trying to say across two threads.

loool



lilbroex on 24 August 2012
teigaga said:
lilbroex said:

Not really. You may like the design of those games but on a pure technical level, it went to P-100

 

Looks better than anything I've seen on the PS3/360

I think its the other way round. P-100 may be the best looking and sharpst. But its consist 90% of block geometry and undetailed, yet shiny textures. Compare this to GOW 3 fight with Chronos. Find a HD vid if you can.

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

What is suppose to be so great about that? Its just a big character with some bump mapped texturing. There is hardly anything going on at all, at least compared to P-100.

Do you not see all of the detail on those buildings? The windows? The objects on the roofs? Then with 20 characters fluidly jumping around. the dust particles, the omnipresent environmental destruction, the texture variety and all at 60 FPS. I'm sorry but GOW3 doesn't come close on a technical level.