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

archbrix on 24 August 2012
teigaga said:
happydolphin 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.

What fact? That's not a fact. Seriously what is wrong with you people? We just don't know yet so until more info comes out we're all just speculating.

You're correct, its not a fact but everything we've seen and heard suggests this to be the case. 

No, it doesn't.  Comparing WiiU vs the HD twins to Wii vs Gamecube is highly erroneous.

The Wii was a very marginal leap over Gamecube; the Wii's Broadway and Hollywood processors were basically just extensions of the Gamecube's Gekko and Flipper processors.  Yes, Wii has more RAM, but, most importantly, there were no real changes to the graphical architecture.

The WiiU has modern architecture, 3x the amount of RAM as PS360 (1.5g vs 512mb) and a GPU that's two generations ahead of what's in the current consoles (R700 family vs 360's R500 family).  The Wii had nowhere near this leap in tech over the Gamecube.



Around the Network
ghettoglamour on 24 August 2012
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)



Game of the year 2017 so far:

5. Resident Evil VII
4. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
3. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy
2. Horizon Zero Dawn
1. Super Mario Odyssey

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

I think the truth about the wii was that nintendo simply were'nt confident enough to compete with the 360 and ps3 on power, Had the gamecube been a success and sold 40m+ I think the wii would have been closer to the strength of the 360. I think with the wii U they may possibly be of the mind set that  all 90m wii owners are patiently waiting for nintendo to release a system in HD as opposed to simply buying a ps3/360. Either that or what you suggested. 

The problem is the success of the ps3/360 (140m combined) is largely down to more traditional/core gaming titles. I don't think a 0.5 upgrade in graphics is going to convince the guys who buy these games (COD, Assasins Creed, Halo, GTA, Uncharted, Final fantasy) to buy a new system, so I think they (sony especially) have no choice but to take that full Leap towards HQ CGI quality visuals, and I feel the Wii U will be left out. Sony/MS could try and innovate as nintendo did with the wii but I can't see what they could really bring to the table. Xbox has Kinect, so there  is potential kinect 2 will blow our minds but I think we will likely just see higher accuracy, which I don't think is needed for most of the games which use kinect. And sony have nothing.... the point is I think Sony/MS will realise this and max out the power of their consoles. Which by late 2013/2014 that may not be as expensive as one imagines it to be now.


That is a fair point, but I disagree with your conclusion.  I think that Microsoft in particular is dead set on targeting the casual market.  Look at their E3 conference.  When you watched that, did you see a company who was interested in cutting edge gaming technology, or did you see a company who is more interested in selling you a machine to play your netflix on?  Microsoft at least is leaning just as casually as Nintendo, with a few legacy shooting franchises.

As for Sony, can they afford to max out the power of their consoles?  Sony is in rough financial shape, and they're counting on their gaming division to help pull them out of this slump.  Sony can't afford to make an insanely powerful console and take a beating on it.  Nintendo could survive another Gamecube.  Sony can't survive another PS3.

I agree on both points, Microsoft are definitely trying to broaden the market, but I think that will happen more through the media space and I'm not sure how much of marketing push that is for the 360 vs the 720. Could they possibly support 2 consoles at the same time, each with a different market in mind? I don't think they will use bleedy edge tech by 2013 standards but by todays. Next Gen is going to be an even longer investment then this one, so I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft are willing to bleed money for the 1st year on 2. On the other hand, they will likely be recovering alot on Xbox 360+ Kinect sales which I think will continue throughout 2014. 

Its true about sony being in a difficult position, but to me they have no other option. Everything points towards them releasing after 720, if they don't have the technilogical edge what will they have? One thing I have briefly considered (do not judge), If the wii U and 720 only took half steps could sony hold out on the ps4 for even longer and have the ps3 compete against WiiU/720 with new incentives and rebranding?

Either way, I'm still very confident the consoles will represent a huge leap. If I'm wrong, then the Wii U truly is in a good position


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.



lilbroex on 24 August 2012
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.



Soundwave on 24 August 2012
archbrix said:
teigaga said:
happydolphin 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.

What fact? That's not a fact. Seriously what is wrong with you people? We just don't know yet so until more info comes out we're all just speculating.

You're correct, its not a fact but everything we've seen and heard suggests this to be the case. 

No, it doesn't.  Comparing WiiU vs the HD twins to Wii vs Gamecube is highly erroneous.

The Wii was a very marginal leap over Gamecube; the Wii's Broadway and Hollywood processors were basically just extensions of the Gamecube's Gekko and Flipper processors.  Yes, Wii has more RAM, but, most importantly, there were no real changes to the graphical architecture.

The WiiU has modern architecture, 3x the amount of RAM as PS360 (1.5g vs 512mb) and a GPU that's two generations ahead of what's in the current consoles (R700 family vs 360's R500 family).  The Wii had nowhere near this leap in tech over the Gamecube.


The way I see it is 

Wii U = 3DS

360/PS3 = PSP 

The 3DS has like 3x-4x the usable RAM the PSP has and a GPU with more effects on it, but a lot of the games still look about PSP quality. 

I think in designing both the 3DS and Wii U that was basically Nintendo's philosophy ... they looked at the PSP and the 360/PS3 and said lets get more RAM in there and have GPUs with that are a bit more modern. 



Around the Network
Soundwave on 24 August 2012
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. 



lilbroex on 24 August 2012
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



ghettoglamour on 24 August 2012
lilbroex said:

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.

Yeah sure...I think your eyes may need correction then, go check them.



Game of the year 2017 so far:

5. Resident Evil VII
4. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
3. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy
2. Horizon Zero Dawn
1. Super Mario Odyssey

HappySqurriel on 24 August 2012
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.



oniyide on 24 August 2012
phenom08 said:
@pezus there's no need to worry because it's undoubtfully more powerful and no dev said 99% lol. That was an article with no dev to quote said 99%. Of course you believed it though. The games were not as obvious as you claim and yes it looked better because it was running at a better frame rate.

@Oniyide of course you would agree with him, where is your proof that it's slightly more powerful than the current Gen. Which is what you quoted as being correct. If the ports are proof than the 360 must be aliitle more powerful than the PS2 going by you guys logic. It did receive ports from the PS2.

On topic: They specs wouldn't be surprising if the console wasn't stronger than he thought. He wouldn't say easily matching PS3 if it wasn't a good bit more powerful.

still see you have not learned how to read (spelling shows this) I never anything about 3rd party games. Im talking about the 1st party ones, and if you really believe Pikmin3 and Mario blow anything that has been released on PS360 away, then say that now and i'll leave you...to whatever it is you do