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

GhaudePhaede010 on 27 August 2012
teigaga said:
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.


It is also your opinion on... fuck it. See points 1, 2, and 3. Nothing you said can be determined without any level of bias or opinion. You cannot tell someone to remove... oh fuck it. In order to make the mistakes you have made and leave this argument on thee internet for the rest of our lives only goes to show me I should have stopped posting at my first post.

And to add to that, you have now conjectured my feelings on this matter. You are amazing in all the wrong ways.



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

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 27 August 2012
prayformojo said:


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.


The only thing that would stop a grandmother from playing Call of Duty (or the vast majority of modern first person shooters) is interest ... My 9 year old nephew regularly struggles for months to be successful in games like New Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Galaxy, but can complete the typical FPS in (about) a week on normal difficulty. Modern FPS games are embarassingly easy compared to what they were in the late 90s.



HappySqurriel on 27 August 2012
oniyide said:


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

 

 

Maybe you should reconsider your assumptions on "casual" gamers. 


teigaga on 27 August 2012
GhaudePhaede010 said:

Teigaga said:

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.


It is also your opinion on... fuck it. See points 1, 2, and 3. Nothing you said can be determined without any level of bias or opinion. You cannot tell someone to remove... oh fuck it. In order to make the mistakes you have made and leave this argument on thee internet for the rest of our lives only goes to show me I should have stopped posting at my first post.

And to add to that, you have now conjectured my feelings on this matter. You are amazing in all the wrong ways.

I will end it here

"Nothing you said can be determined without any level of bias or opinion" So the number of titles across genres is not quantifiable? If you'd actually bothered reading my  reponses, you would know that this is the only place I want opinion to be removed from. The wii is a great place for platformers but was a system designed for everyone, so I weigh its success on how well they catered to everyone. Someone with a preferences to plaftormers may see the wii as the best platform ever, but to understand the opinion that the system was underwhelding, one must look at it objectively. One does not simply score a high grade in an exam for answering 1 of 10 questions very well. The grade is a result of the collective marks scored across all questions. I feel even more confident in this point by the fact that nintendo has publicly stated (MANY TIMES) that they want to improve upon the 3rd party support the Wii had. The number 1, reason for this is that 3rd parties create games for genre which nintendo do not, which meant they were unable to cater to many segments of the "core" market. 

Points 1,2 and 3 mean nothing because you're incapable of deconstructing an arguement. The irony in all this is that I myself saw a very clear fault in my initial statement, which you haven't mention in your empty rants. "diverse high QUALITY titles" quality is obviously based on opinion and its hard to ask one to remove genre bias and at the same time ask them to adopt popular concesus on what titles are (or are not) of respectable quality. Regardless of how, I've essentially rephrased my arguement above in  way which i'm sure won't offend your intelligence, if you still think its a load of "crap", so be it. *departs from thread*



oniyide on 27 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
oniyide said:


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

 

 

Maybe you should reconsider your assumptions on "casual" gamers. 


i never said anything about WiiSports im just arguing that COD is NOT a casual game as the amount of hours played is just as high as that if not probably higher.  THere really is no such thing as a casual game, there are games that are made to be more pick up and play with a much less difficulty curve, like WiiSports, but there are games made with the intention of being played for the long haul, like a Fallout 3



Around the Network
lilbroex on 27 August 2012
prayformojo said:


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.


COD has to be the most casual game in existence then.



Baron on 27 August 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Baron said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Based on the amount of games offered the PS3 is at this moment the gamers console. The Xbox 360 may have the most popular games, but the fewest exclusives and a has the longest exclusive droughts for the past three years. The Wii U is coming out so we can excuse the Wii while it bows out. The casual market was had been used up and moved onto the next gimmick in the Kinect a year earlier and it hurt the Wii. The Wii had a good four years on top, but as all casual things, it never lasts.

More exclusives =/= best games library. The Wii has the most exclusives. Why don't you consider that console to be the gamers console?


The Wii has the most exclusives but they are not rated the highest. The PS3 has the highest rated exclusives of all the consoles, then comes the 360 and then the Wii. Why might you ask? The Wii's highest rated exclusives are first party, but their third party exclusive shovelware list is the largest percentage Ive seen. The PS2 had a higher percentage of high rated exclusives than the Wii did for sure. Way beyond it really. Most of the third parties really sucked at harnessing the Wii's attributes and that hurt it in that realm alot. The Wii is not the gamers console, it was the casual console but when the Kinect launched it weakened the Wii's sales numbers with the casuals. The core third party titles that were actually good on the Wii were having a hard time selling and people were wondering why. Well...its kind of obvious...the core aren't buying on the Wii but as for Nintendo first party its business as usual selling extremely well (especially in bundles).

I think you're talking about averages, correct? The highest rated games of this gen are Mario Galaxy and Mario Galaxy 2. I agree the Wii has a lot of shovelware and compared to the PS3 and 360 a poor offering of 3rd party games but that doesn't make the good Wii's exclusives weak. In fact, one can argue the other two consoles have nothing to offer that can compete with Mario, Zelda, Metroid and Smash Bros. Just like the Wii has nothing to offer that can compete with Gears of War, Halo, Forza or Gran Turismo.

Ratings have nothing to do with games being for 'real' gamers. Therefor one cannot simply say console x is better because it has a higher amount of positively rated games. If the Wii only had Nintendo to rely on for exclusives the average ratings of its exclusive games would be much higher than either the 360 or PS3 exclusives. That doesn't mean anything.

Real gamers will buy/want multiple platforms.



Kynes on 27 August 2012

Take a look at the supposed size of the WiiU. You can't make a very powerful console with so low power requirement, I'm sure that Nintendo has done a good enough, very power optimized console (the EDRAM rumor hints to this) but it can't be several times more powerful than Xbox360 or PS3 with so tiny power profile.



Crono141 on 27 August 2012
Kynes said:
Take a look at the supposed size of the WiiU. You can't make a very powerful console with so low power requirement, I'm sure that Nintendo has done a good enough, very power optimized console (the EDRAM rumor hints to this) but it can't be several times more powerful than Xbox360 or PS3 with so tiny power profile.


Sure it can.  Its called modern processor architecture and a smaller die.  A 3rd gen core i7 draws less power than a core 2 duo, but is leaps and bounds more powerful.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.

Kynes on 27 August 2012
Crono141 said:
Kynes said:
Take a look at the supposed size of the WiiU. You can't make a very powerful console with so low power requirement, I'm sure that Nintendo has done a good enough, very power optimized console (the EDRAM rumor hints to this) but it can't be several times more powerful than Xbox360 or PS3 with so tiny power profile.


Sure it can.  Its called modern processor architecture and a smaller die.  A 3rd gen core i7 draws less power than a core 2 duo, but is leaps and bounds more powerful.


You forget something. Xbox 360 and PS3 are using the same 45nm technology than the WiiU is supposed to use. If you could do a Core 2 Duo with 22 nm technology, taking into consideration that it would probably be pad limited, I'm sure that it will draw much less power than an I7.