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

phenom08 on 26 August 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
phenom08 said:

Ratings lol. The PS3 also has the lowest selling exclusives of all the consoles. I wonder why that is? What exactly does the PS2 have to do with this, oh i know it was Sony's last successful platform. The core 3rd party games on the Wii had a hard time selling because they sucked plain and simple, whats Sony's exclusives reason for selling poorly? Wii Fit had virtually no bundles, NSMBWii was bundled a year after release, Mario Kart Wii was bundled 3 years after release, Wii Play had no bundles, and Wii Sports Resort was bundles a year after release. Please stop the excuses it really is sad.


I kind of just spelled out the reason Sonys exclusives sales sucked compared to Nintendo. Their titles are less casual friendly and are getting more exposed to a slim core audience, whilst the rest of the more successful titles are more highly commercialised third parties like Call of Duty, Battlefield. Outside of Uncharted and God of War their marketing hasnt been stellar.

No you didnt all you did was provide the same lame excuse as you always do. Marketing, how about provide some proof of poor marketing. Less casual friendly lol, CoD and GTA arent exactly for the casuals and both sell extremely well so try again. Kinect has plenty of casual games and yet most of them have sold as poorly as Sony's exclusives except the one that is bundled with Kinect.



Around the Network
phenom08 on 26 August 2012

@S.T.A.G.E We have derailed this thread enough we can end it here, you are free to post more excuses on my wall.

@at thread starter My apologies, just sick of the lame excuses.



HappySqurriel on 26 August 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:


I kind of just spelled out the reason Sonys exclusives sales sucked compared to Nintendo. Their titles are less casual friendly and are getting more exposed to a slim core audience, whilst the rest of the more successful titles are more highly commercialised third parties like Call of Duty, Battlefield. Outside of Uncharted and God of War their marketing hasnt been stellar.

I don't think that any of Sony's games are not "casual friendly" ... If you have a pulse you can usually complete most "Hardcore" games on easy or normal difficulty. Sony's games have limited sales because they're not particularly unique in the market ...

While many Nintendo games are soon copied, Nintendo rarely develops games that are copies of something that is already on the market. A lot of their games end up demonstrating that there isn't much demand for games like that, but when they're successful they see massive success. When Sony copies countless first person shooters that are already on their system with games like Killzone and Resistance the best they can do is capture a portion of a market that is already well served by other developers. In contrast when Nintendo makes a game like Wii Fit they can capture a massive untapped market.



GhaudePhaede010 on 26 August 2012
teigaga said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:
teigaga said:
lilbroex said:
prayformojo said:
teigaga said:
 

Its actually really simple, the Wii U is not powerfull enough for most people to get excited for from a graphical standpoint, all of these articles suggesting that its a tad weaker, a tad stronger or excactly the same all point reaffirm this point. Its firmly attached to the the level of visuals be seeing for the last few years. It annoys me that most nintendo fan want to believe that everyone with something to say other then praise is automatically a nintendo hater, they are simply people with valid opinions; The Wii U is not cutting edge tech. Of course time is a consideration because what was cutting edge and impressive in 2008, no longer is in 2012. Thats how technology works.

I'm buying the Wii U at launch but I don't feel any need to pretend or delude myself into thinking thats its a graphical powerhouse that will usher in a new era of animation, lighting, physics, A.I etc. 

Until Nintendo shows Starwars 1313 or a game of the graphical quality running off the system, then we should all just except the fact the Wii U is simply a minor graphical improvement over the current gen consoles, similar to gamecube vs wii.

Iwata said that the gap between Wii-U and the other systems won't be as wide as it was this gen. Nintendo isn't going to make a beast of a console and destroy the other two, but they know they screwed up last time and I don't think they'd do it again. I think at worst, we're looking at a Dreamcast to Xbox difference and that's fine imo. I loved the Dreamcast, and even though it was clearly behind the Xbox, it was much more fun to play (I had all four consoles that gen). I don't remember EVER thinking "man, the Dreamcast looks like crap". As a matter of fact, I didn't even WANT another console. The only reason I bought a PS2 was because the Dreamcast died at it's hand and I HAD to move on.

The Wii-U will be fine.


I still don't get this. How did they screw up? They won this gen. If the Wii completely stopped selling right this instant, the PS3 and 360 would still never catch it in sells. As Reggie said, they had the best specs the two gens before this one and those have been their worst two gens.

The only people I can think of who didn't like the Wii were the kind who only play miliant shooters and medieval/ancient sword fighting games like Uncharted, God of War and Dark Souls. Oh, and the ever classic graphics fanatics, because if it doesn't look photorealistic(which has only been achieved with ames that used actual photos like Mortal Kombat 1-3) then its no good to them.

People who preferred playing anything aside from those categories generally liked the Wii and DS.

I wonder, with all of the people who say the Wii U has bad graphics, do the PS3 and 360 also now have bad graphics since theirs are not as good as the Wii U?


No one is suggesting they screwed up in a commercial sense but I think wii's library beyond 2009 has been pretty terrible. Detach personal bias and taste, and I simply believe there was not enough diverse high QUALITY titles on the system to cater to various demographics. 

From a crirical perspective the wii has been brilliant for party games and platformers, but I think most people want a more well rounded system and so do Nintendo HQ. Not to say that they're perfect but I think the HD twins have done a better job of satisfying the full range of their audiences over the full length of their lifes. I think this is the main basis of people critcising the Wii as a console. 


Here I was thinking I was done contributing to this topic when I see the second sentence of this post... followed by the second half of the second sentence of this post. "Detach personal bias and taste..." followed by, "I simply believe..." personal bias and taste. Nice.

To clarify

"Detach personal bias and taste..." is in reference to ones gaming preferences. I.E some people like platformers more then shooters. Remove that from the equation and simply look at the quantity/variety of games across the various different genres available on the platform. 


To clarify:

 

You cannot make an argument with the basis being fact when you state your opinion. Nice try though. And your argument, no matter how you stack it is heavily opinion based as it is. You cannot factually say what you said because 1) It is not true. 2) It is your opinion. 3) Taste is exactly according to the gamer you are speaking with.

Besides all that, you are totally incorrect, totally full of crap, and trying to pass of your opinion as fact. I am blown away nobody else tried to call you out on that. But I did, and I am done here. You lost all credit with me on this topic. In the future, I will have forgotten your screen name so this topic will have no weight on my opinion of you or how I decide to interact with you. No rapport gained or lost here.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

Viper1 on 26 August 2012
Alby_da_Wolf said:

As I wrote, exclusives should have no problems, rather devs used to Wii's 90-100MB total RAM should feel like in Heaven (so we should expect wonders from those that already did them with far less RAM). I should add some things: graphics should be OK, GPU is more powerful and feature-rich, so just reserving 0.5GB to graphics should make them noticeably better than current gen. And about system RAM and multiplats, those originally developed on Wii U or systems with even less RAM should be fine too, and even games developed for PCs with 2GB RAM should be fine, as those 2GB take into account that Windows can easily eat 1GB. So the only problems could arise on games with huge levels and large numbers of interactive objects if originally developed on systems with more main RAM. About PC games ports, troubles could start for those with 3GB or more MINIMUM RAM requirements. So we talk about quite a narrow subset of all the possible games, as such PC games would have the PC as their main platform anyway, while for games developed on consoles, Wii U, being released first could be often the original platform of multiplats, while in other cases, devs could probably take into account WiiU limits to maximize their game audience. And for graphics, no problem at all again, as engines are scalable widely enough up and down, graphics RAM size difference between WiiU and competitors will be a lot smaller in percentage than the one between Wii and HD twins, not to mention that 1080p will be the target res of the vast majority of TVs next gen, higher res will be niche for years, so it will be at most optional for games, if considered at all.
So yes, small RAM could surely create some problems, requiring additional work for porting some multiplats, but in a very limited number of cases.

Part of the reason I made my statement is because too few of us are considering the advances in features like Texture Streaming and Sparse Voxel Octree.   Texture Streaming greatly reduces the need for RAM to store lots of textures locally.  They get dumped onto a faster medium like a hard drive (a flash based scratch pad is even better and the Wii U has 8 GB of flash memory), are decompressed and them streamed into the scene as needed.  SVO is an Level Of Detail system that generates not just textures but geometry in real time based on distance from view.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
curl-6 on 27 August 2012
phenom08 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
phenom08 said:
 

Ratings lol. The PS3 also has the lowest selling exclusives of all the consoles. I wonder why that is? What exactly does the PS2 have to do with this, oh i know it was Sony's last successful platform. The core 3rd party games on the Wii had a hard time selling because they sucked plain and simple, whats Sony's exclusives reason for selling poorly? Wii Fit had virtually no bundles, NSMBWii was bundled a year after release, Mario Kart Wii was bundled 3 years after release, Wii Play had no bundles, and Wii Sports Resort was bundles a year after release. Please stop the excuses it really is sad.


I kind of just spelled out the reason Sonys exclusives sales sucked compared to Nintendo. Their titles are less casual friendly and are getting more exposed to a slim core audience, whilst the rest of the more successful titles are more highly commercialised third parties like Call of Duty, Battlefield. Outside of Uncharted and God of War their marketing hasnt been stellar.

No you didnt all you did was provide the same lame excuse as you always do. Marketing, how about provide some proof of poor marketing. Less casual friendly lol, CoD and GTA arent exactly for the casuals and both sell extremely well so try again. Kinect has plenty of casual games and yet most of them have sold as poorly as Sony's exclusives except the one that is bundled with Kinect.

COD is casual.



prayformojo on 27 August 2012
curl-6 said:
phenom08 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
phenom08 said:
 

Ratings lol. The PS3 also has the lowest selling exclusives of all the consoles. I wonder why that is? What exactly does the PS2 have to do with this, oh i know it was Sony's last successful platform. The core 3rd party games on the Wii had a hard time selling because they sucked plain and simple, whats Sony's exclusives reason for selling poorly? Wii Fit had virtually no bundles, NSMBWii was bundled a year after release, Mario Kart Wii was bundled 3 years after release, Wii Play had no bundles, and Wii Sports Resort was bundles a year after release. Please stop the excuses it really is sad.


I kind of just spelled out the reason Sonys exclusives sales sucked compared to Nintendo. Their titles are less casual friendly and are getting more exposed to a slim core audience, whilst the rest of the more successful titles are more highly commercialised third parties like Call of Duty, Battlefield. Outside of Uncharted and God of War their marketing hasnt been stellar.

No you didnt all you did was provide the same lame excuse as you always do. Marketing, how about provide some proof of poor marketing. Less casual friendly lol, CoD and GTA arent exactly for the casuals and both sell extremely well so try again. Kinect has plenty of casual games and yet most of them have sold as poorly as Sony's exclusives except the one that is bundled with Kinect.

COD is casual.


A casual game is defined, generally, as a game in which someone who doesn't play games can pick up, and play. Your grandmother could NOT pick up a 360 controller and play that game online. She'd be running around in the middle of a map in circles, shooting bullets at the sky and wondering what was going on.



oniyide on 27 August 2012
prayformojo said:
curl-6 said:
phenom08 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
phenom08 said:
 

Ratings lol. The PS3 also has the lowest selling exclusives of all the consoles. I wonder why that is? What exactly does the PS2 have to do with this, oh i know it was Sony's last successful platform. The core 3rd party games on the Wii had a hard time selling because they sucked plain and simple, whats Sony's exclusives reason for selling poorly? Wii Fit had virtually no bundles, NSMBWii was bundled a year after release, Mario Kart Wii was bundled 3 years after release, Wii Play had no bundles, and Wii Sports Resort was bundles a year after release. Please stop the excuses it really is sad.


I kind of just spelled out the reason Sonys exclusives sales sucked compared to Nintendo. Their titles are less casual friendly and are getting more exposed to a slim core audience, whilst the rest of the more successful titles are more highly commercialised third parties like Call of Duty, Battlefield. Outside of Uncharted and God of War their marketing hasnt been stellar.

No you didnt all you did was provide the same lame excuse as you always do. Marketing, how about provide some proof of poor marketing. Less casual friendly lol, CoD and GTA arent exactly for the casuals and both sell extremely well so try again. Kinect has plenty of casual games and yet most of them have sold as poorly as Sony's exclusives except the one that is bundled with Kinect.

COD is casual.


A casual game is defined, generally, as a game in which someone who doesn't play games can pick up, and play. Your grandmother could NOT pick up a 360 controller and play that game online. She'd be running around in the middle of a map in circles, shooting bullets at the sky and wondering what was going on.


THis and generally speaking, the average COD player probably has at least 30-40 hours on any given game, that is not casual game playing right there



Soundwave on 27 August 2012

CoD is not a casual game but it is the hot mainstream game of the moment.

No different from Street Fighter II/Mortal Kombat, GoldenEye, and Grand Theft Auto before it.

It's the gaming equivalent of the big budget summer Hollywood blockbuster.

We're just arguing semantics though, there's obviously a big difference between a game like CoD and a game like Wii Fit. 



teigaga on 27 August 2012
GhaudePhaede010 said:
teigaga said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:
teigaga said:
lilbroex said:
prayformojo said:
teigaga said:
 

Its actually really simple, the Wii U is not powerfull enough for most people to get excited for from a graphical standpoint, all of these articles suggesting that its a tad weaker, a tad stronger or excactly the same all point reaffirm this point. Its firmly attached to the the level of visuals be seeing for the last few years. It annoys me that most nintendo fan want to believe that everyone with something to say other then praise is automatically a nintendo hater, they are simply people with valid opinions; The Wii U is not cutting edge tech. Of course time is a consideration because what was cutting edge and impressive in 2008, no longer is in 2012. Thats how technology works.

I'm buying the Wii U at launch but I don't feel any need to pretend or delude myself into thinking thats its a graphical powerhouse that will usher in a new era of animation, lighting, physics, A.I etc. 

Until Nintendo shows Starwars 1313 or a game of the graphical quality running off the system, then we should all just except the fact the Wii U is simply a minor graphical improvement over the current gen consoles, similar to gamecube vs wii.

Iwata said that the gap between Wii-U and the other systems won't be as wide as it was this gen. Nintendo isn't going to make a beast of a console and destroy the other two, but they know they screwed up last time and I don't think they'd do it again. I think at worst, we're looking at a Dreamcast to Xbox difference and that's fine imo. I loved the Dreamcast, and even though it was clearly behind the Xbox, it was much more fun to play (I had all four consoles that gen). I don't remember EVER thinking "man, the Dreamcast looks like crap". As a matter of fact, I didn't even WANT another console. The only reason I bought a PS2 was because the Dreamcast died at it's hand and I HAD to move on.

The Wii-U will be fine.


I still don't get this. How did they screw up? They won this gen. If the Wii completely stopped selling right this instant, the PS3 and 360 would still never catch it in sells. As Reggie said, they had the best specs the two gens before this one and those have been their worst two gens.

The only people I can think of who didn't like the Wii were the kind who only play miliant shooters and medieval/ancient sword fighting games like Uncharted, God of War and Dark Souls. Oh, and the ever classic graphics fanatics, because if it doesn't look photorealistic(which has only been achieved with ames that used actual photos like Mortal Kombat 1-3) then its no good to them.

People who preferred playing anything aside from those categories generally liked the Wii and DS.

I wonder, with all of the people who say the Wii U has bad graphics, do the PS3 and 360 also now have bad graphics since theirs are not as good as the Wii U?


No one is suggesting they screwed up in a commercial sense but I think wii's library beyond 2009 has been pretty terrible. Detach personal bias and taste, and I simply believe there was not enough diverse high QUALITY titles on the system to cater to various demographics. 

From a crirical perspective the wii has been brilliant for party games and platformers, but I think most people want a more well rounded system and so do Nintendo HQ. Not to say that they're perfect but I think the HD twins have done a better job of satisfying the full range of their audiences over the full length of their lifes. I think this is the main basis of people critcising the Wii as a console. 


Here I was thinking I was done contributing to this topic when I see the second sentence of this post... followed by the second half of the second sentence of this post. "Detach personal bias and taste..." followed by, "I simply believe..." personal bias and taste. Nice.

To clarify

"Detach personal bias and taste..." is in reference to ones gaming preferences. I.E some people like platformers more then shooters. Remove that from the equation and simply look at the quantity/variety of games across the various different genres available on the platform. 


To clarify:

You cannot make an argument with the basis being fact when you state your opinion. Nice try though. And your argument, no matter how you stack it is heavily opinion based as it is. You cannot factually say what you said because 1) It is not true. 2) It is your opinion. 3) Taste is exactly according to the gamer you are speaking with.

Besides all that, you are totally incorrect, totally full of crap, and trying to pass of your opinion as fact. I am blown away nobody else tried to call you out on that. But I did, and I am done here. You lost all credit with me on this topic. In the future, I will have forgotten your screen name so this topic will have no weight on my opinion of you or how I decide to interact with you. No rapport gained or lost here.


The thesis was forged by opinion, I believe a quality of systsem is based on how well its caters to its audience, at no point do I try and convey this as fact.The basis being quantifiable (number of titles across genres), is divorced from bias/taste and can be conisdered factual. I did not convey my loose conclusion as fact "I simply believe..." because I haven't compared the entire wii library against the ps3/360, I simply based it off the titles which came to mind. 

It baffles me that you can be so offened by something which is relatively simple, you've clearly just picked out the 2 contradictory terms (divorced from bias/opinion) and decided that they cannot co-exist within an arguement, as opposed to lookin at them in context, context which I have clarified.