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

Forums - Gaming - Wii U graphics power finally revealed - "we can now finally rule out any next-gen pretensions for the Wii U"

Hynad on 05 February 2013
gronk-bonk said:
Aielyn said:
Hynad said:

Wow. So touchy. Why, exactly?

I'll word it an other way then... The Wii U is an underpowered new gen console. Better? Ha ha!

It's irrelevent to you, maybe. But obviously, it affects you quite a bit, since you're so adamant in making sure people see this the way you do. 

Also, nice of you to finish that post of yours by flaming.

I'll word it a different way for you, then. The PS3 and 360 were overpowered consoles, hence the exorbitant price of the PS3 and the fact that the 360 had hardware problems for the first two years.

My point? It's all perspective. And since we can't have reasonable debates about things when we use subjective measures such as "which console is underpowered, overpowered, etc" to define the basic parameters, the only rational thing to do is to choose an objective measure.

And what luck, we have an objective measure - time of release. Which fortunately lines up quite nicely with the actual definition of "generation".

As for why I'm touchy - I'm touchy about anybody who would dare to screw with the English language in order to reinforce their personal bias.

And no, there was no flaming. I referred not once to people, but to arguments. The argument over "What constitutes next-gen" is a STUPID one, based on the ignorant idea that power should be the defining property of a generation. I did not say in my post that the people involved in the argument are stupid, I said that the argument itself was stupid.


Man let it go. Not worth the time. The media and the haters are going to have a frenzy tomorrow. The situation is going to get worst before it gets better. Just enjoy the games you love - thats all what really matters.

So stating that the Wii U is an underpowered console is being a hater? 

So I hate my Wii because I say it is underpowered? 

Yeah, sure.

History repeats itself. Ha ha.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 05 February 2013

Aielyn said:

I'm mad guys, be nice.

Next-Gen in terms of graphics bro. I think that implication is clear...to any rational person.



S.Peelman on 05 February 2013
Scisca said:

I have a different point of view. This is what I think about Wii and Wii U and which generations they really belong to.

Think about yourself in 30-40 years, when you're explaining to your grandson what a game console was ;) Now you give him all the consoles starting from the NES (let's just skip the older ones), Sega Master, SNES, Mega Drive, PSX, Saturn, N64, Dreamcast and so on up until Wii U, PS4 and X-box 8. You let the kid play every console for an hour and ask him to segregate the consoles into 6 generations. Where would the little kid put the Wii and the Wii U? Just basing on what he experienced, without any additional knowledge.

I think he would put the Wii right next to the PS2, GCN, Dreamcast and X-box. Wii U is still in the air, but so far my bet is he would put it together with PS3 and X-box 360.

This is the way I see this issue.

Okay, that is fine. But then you're not talking about 'generations' as by the meaning of the word anymore. More like... 'families', or 'groups' or whatever word you'd find best.

One can group things in an indefinite amount of ways. For example I could group them all by advancements in controllers. Which would put NES, Genesis and Master System, 5600, 7200 and Jaguar in 'group 1' (only digital four-way input) and thus the least advanced systems; the Atari 2600 in 'group 2' (digital joysticks); the many Pong consoles, the N64, Saturn, Dreamcast and the Odyssey2 in 'group 3' (more accurate analogue joysticks); all the PlayStations, the GC, WiiU and the two XBoxes in 'group 4' (dual analogues), the Wii in group 5 (motion control) and the Virtual Boy as the most advanced one with (yes) 'virtual reality' in 'group 6' ().

No matter how you look at it though, it doesn't however change the fact that in reality, the WiiU is still the successor to the Wii by 'time', which makes it a generation (as defined by the meaning of the word) up from the Wii and the GC, N64 etc. before it. Even if the WiiU were to only have the power of the SNES, it would still be the successor to Wii and thus 'next-gen'. A crappy one by today's standard of-course .



Aielyn on 05 February 2013
dsgrue3 said:
I'm mad guys, be nice.

Hey look, I can do it too.



Branko2166 on 05 February 2013

@Aielyn

Ok so putting a smiley at the end of a flame post makes it all ok my bad.

And as far as your issue apparently being that people are "screwing" with the English language please don't insult my intelligence. It is fairly apparent why you are agitated.

And by the way I couldn't disagree more about performance being subjective. It is one thing which is clearly defined and can be tested.

For instance we may both think that the Mario Galaxy games are beautiful visually from our point of view which is subjective but we cannot claim that they run in HD when played on the Wii which is an objective indisputable fact.



 

 

Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 05 February 2013
Aielyn said:
dsgrue3 said:
I'm mad guys, be nice.

Hey look, I can do it too.

Doesn't have any adverse effect on me since I'm not mad.

dsgrue3 said:

Aielyn said:

I'm mad guys, be nice.

Next-Gen in terms of graphics bro. I think that implication is clear...to any rational person.

^^^^^ still true. Still ignoring it. I mean even the title has the word graphics in it, yet you fail to realize this is about next-gen graphics? LOL



Aielyn on 05 February 2013
pezus said:
"The answer is fairly straightforward - leaks tend to derive from development kit and SDK documentation and, as we understand it, this crucial information simply wasn't available in Nintendo's papers, with developers essentially left to their own devices to figure out the performance level of the hardware."

That's a great job, Nintendo. Well done

Why would you trust the claim of the article, given the general tone of the article itself? It seems to me that you should be taking it all with a grain of salt, given that we already know that the article is making a number of false claims, like the claim that people know the specs of the Wii U now.



gronk-bonk on 05 February 2013
Hynad said:
gronk-bonk said:
Aielyn said:
Hynad said:

Wow. So touchy. Why, exactly?

I'll word it an other way then... The Wii U is an underpowered new gen console. Better? Ha ha!

It's irrelevent to you, maybe. But obviously, it affects you quite a bit, since you're so adamant in making sure people see this the way you do. 

Also, nice of you to finish that post of yours by flaming.

I'll word it a different way for you, then. The PS3 and 360 were overpowered consoles, hence the exorbitant price of the PS3 and the fact that the 360 had hardware problems for the first two years.

My point? It's all perspective. And since we can't have reasonable debates about things when we use subjective measures such as "which console is underpowered, overpowered, etc" to define the basic parameters, the only rational thing to do is to choose an objective measure.

And what luck, we have an objective measure - time of release. Which fortunately lines up quite nicely with the actual definition of "generation".

As for why I'm touchy - I'm touchy about anybody who would dare to screw with the English language in order to reinforce their personal bias.

And no, there was no flaming. I referred not once to people, but to arguments. The argument over "What constitutes next-gen" is a STUPID one, based on the ignorant idea that power should be the defining property of a generation. I did not say in my post that the people involved in the argument are stupid, I said that the argument itself was stupid.


Man let it go. Not worth the time. The media and the haters are going to have a frenzy tomorrow. The situation is going to get worst before it gets better. Just enjoy the games you love - thats all what really matters.

So stating that the Wii U is an underpowered console is being a hater? 

So I hate my Wii because I say it is underpowered? 

Yeah, sure.

History repeats itself. Ha ha.


i wasnt refering to you. He was getting riled. I Just wanted to defuse the situation.

No need to be immature about it.



Bet with ninjablade:

Ninjablade wins if the next 5 multiplat on the wii u are inferior to the 360 version.

I win if one of the 5 mulitplats are on par or superior on the Wii U.

Scisca on 05 February 2013
RolStoppable said:
DanneSandin said:

The thing is that developers are lazy... They couldn't be bothered to make anything unique for the Wii, so they didn't do anything at all. Except for Ubisoft, and they sold a shit ton of Just Dance and Skylanders. But looking at sales of other "core" games on Wii made by Ubisoft, it didn't sell gang busters; Red Steel 2 (I'm not gonna talk about the first game, since it seems really bad). That's quite a good game, and it got good reviews - but Wii owners didn't bother picking it up. I think it sold 1m or so... But why don't you go a head and post some of your points as to why/how 3rd parties are biased to Nintendo? I'm sincerely curious!

And I have heard that story about Tekken, and couldn't believe what I was reading. Seemed to incredibly stupid!!

If you heard the Tekken story, then why would you believe that developers are lazy? The Tekken guy wanted to make major changes to the game which would be much more work than a straight port.

Skylanders is an Activision IP.

Red Steel 2 was a pretty average game that had nothing going for it, except motion plus controls. Not particularly long, no multiplayer, no replay value. Good reviews for Wii hardcore games don't mean anything, because there is always Dead Space Extraction. The main reason why some Wii third party games are deemed good is because there was hardly anything of the caliber of a Resident Evil 4. If you take that game (or Monster Hunter Tri) as a benchmark, then original third party games on the Wii were lousy, including Red Steel 2. You could say that it didn't sell well, because there weren't enough people who were willing to lower their standards. If a game like Red Steel 2 was actually good, then you would have people say that it's worth owning a Wii for third party games alone.

A lot of the third party bias against Nintendo has to do with their hivemind nature. If a big third party holds a certain mindset, others are likely to follow without giving it much or any thought. So if a publisher like Electronic Arts goes on record to declare certain things, it's likely that most of the rest of the industry adopts the same mindset. I am pretty sure Nintendo knows this as well which is why they made it a point to court EA and had their CEO on stage at E3 2011. You need to sway the big guys to really change something.

As for why third parties have a beef with Nintendo:

1) Nintendo doesn't bend over for third parties like Sony and Microsoft do. That's actually a perfectly sound stance by Nintendo, because as a console manufacturer they are putting billions on the line, so it's only fair that they have the final say on everything.

2) Nintendo's first party software sells a lot and third parties mistakingly believe that any sale of a first party game equals a lost sale for a third party game. But big first party software does not only drive hardware sales (which subsequently increases software sales on the whole), it also increases interest in other games. If people liked what they bought, they will be inclined to buy more. The following purchase isn't necessarily another first party game.

3) Nintendo's first party software is usually highly polished and offers a lot of replay value. The consequence is that consumers naturally adopt high quality standards. This is something that can bother third parties who want to make a quick buck.

4) Nintendo had strict licensing policies during the NES and SNES generation, so one or the other third party may still hold a grudge over this, even though it feels like ages ago.

What's the argument about DS:E about? This is an honest question. I own the game and like it a lot, just don't know what it stands for in the console wars :P

 

I think your points are pretty much ridiculous. A grudge since NES and SNES? C'mon! Gamecube had a very nice 3rd party support, it got ports which were upgraded versions od PS2 games, so you can't complain. Nintendo could have easily gone on from that point and developed the relationship, but instead they decided to take a different route with the Wii, which was too weird and upredictable for other companies to follow. Remember, if you're investing millions in your games, you don't want to invest in something that's fickle and not certain, when you can invest it in a more certain platform. This is why Wii lost 3rd parties.



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.

Aielyn on 05 February 2013
Branko2166 said:
@Aielyn

 Ok so putting a smiley at the end of a flame post makes it all ok my bad.

Ugh... seriously? You didn't get that it was a joke? You don't understand the ":P" smiley as a person poking their tongue out, or that it means that the comment was meant to be humorous?

You know what - you win. I was actually saying that people who judge next-gen based on raw power have the minds of young children. I also think that the Wii U is so powerful that it'll dwarf the other systems, that the moon is made of green cheese, and that the moon landing conspiracy theory was a hoax created by Iran to discredit the US.