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

Forums - Gaming - Hardware does matter! (hear me out)

Anfebious on 24 January 2014
FlamingWeazel said:
Anfebious said:
I got a question for everyone here saying that hardware matters.

Would you still buy your PS5 if it was less powerful than the Xbox Two?


Can you play software without hardware? No one said it is everything................Games and Hardware matters.


So it wouldn't matter and therefore you would likely buy a PS5 right?

Then hardware isn't as important as everyone makes it to be. Sometimes just a game or two are enough to change someone's loyalty. But not with hardware. You would have a point if the two consoles had the same games as one would likely want to get the "best version" and even then is debatable because maybe the other version is cheaper.

It's simple games matter a lot more, hardware is just an extra.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Around the Network
Super_Boom on 24 January 2014
Ponyless said:

Games matter :). Do you think The Last of Us is a shit game because it's only 720p and 30 fps?

Well played. I'l have to remember this one XD.



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

the_dengle on 24 January 2014
Purple said:

The problem is the Wii U isn't cheap. The console is only a little bit cheaper and the games are just as expensive if not more so. It'd be like if Toyota priced their cars only a few hundred dollars cheaper than a Lamborghini.

And of course the hardware limits developers. Have you not seen what third parties are doing on the PS4? Battlefield 4 would not be possible on the Wii U. ACIV is nowhere near as good on the Wii U. It is therefore by definition limiting developers.

Wrong. It is only a little bit cheaper day one to customers. It is obviously significantly cheaper to the manufacturer -- the PS4 and XBO result in equal or greater losses for the manufacturer at purchase, and they make up for these losses by charging $50 or $60/year for a practically essential part of the console. You aren't paying $400 for your PS4. You're paying $400 + $50 for every year you plan on using its online capabilities, probably at least five years. That would be $650 right there, more than double the cost of the Wii U.



the_dengle on 24 January 2014
oniyide said:
the_dengle said:

The OP's assertion that the Wii U is "limiting developers" by not being more powerful is hilarious in light of the massive delays Nintendo's first-party projects have seen because they're not used to working with such powerful hardware. More powerful hardware would only have resulted in worse delays. "We just got the word from up top, the Wii U has been made way more powerful. Up all of our assets to 1080p resolution." Yeah, that wouldn't be expensive or time-consuming.

But that makes no sense. its not a hardware issue then, its a " Ninty devs are incompetent issue" how come they are the only ones that seem to be having these issues? The Wii U isnt limiting anyone, their not limiting Ninty devs cause they barely no what they are doing anyway and its not limiting 3rd parties cause they dont even seem to be bothering in the first place.

But they aren't the only ones having these issues. Lots of other developers had the same issues... seven or eight years ago. Nintendo developers are NOT used to handling HD development, and I'll reiterate that for most Nintendo developers right now, "HD" means 720p. This thread is basically demanding that they be "allowed" to work with 1080p assets, which would be far more demanding on their budgets and dev time.

It's not a hardware issue. This has been established well enough. Pikmin 3 and the like certainly weren't delayed because they had to be toned down to accomodate the limited power of the Wii U, if that's what you're getting at. That's the opposite of what happened.



Mystro-Sama on 24 January 2014
spemanig said:
Mystro-Sama said:
spemanig said:
BeElite said:
spemanig said:
I'm a Nintendo fan. I think graphics don't matter. I think art style matters. I think performance does matter. I thought the Zelda Wii U tech demo was boring. I don't want Zelda for Wii U to look anything like the tech demo because that's not what Zelda is about. I think that Super Mario 3D World is beautiful because of it's art style. I think Super Mario Galaxy looks better because of it's art style.


what is it about ? why cant you get what u want from zelda why others get a more grown up visual zelda.


Because Zelda is quirky and humble and colorful. That tech demo was not quirky or humble. It was serious, desaturated, and show off-y. 

 

I think WW is the only Zelda to fall under that category. TP was pretty dark and depressing and also visually impressive compared to other games on the Wii and GC. Majoras Mask was kinda dark too. You can't judge what a series is based off one seperate example and lot of people prefered TP's art style over the other Zelda games. I liked the tech demo... like everyone else.


You think wrong. The only ones that don't are Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, which are objectively the weaker titles. You have chickens attacking you, a Mario and Luigi parody, a Goron King that loves to dance, A Zora King that likes to troll, and goofy characters through out Ocarina of Time. Just because Majora's Mask was dark doesn't mean that it wasn't quirky, humble, and colorful, because it was. It was a personal journey. A Zora Sang his dying wish to a rock tune. It was dark in subject matter, not in pallet. There where tones of purples, reds, and greens as opposed to greys in browns like in the tech demo. Twilight Princess was dark in pallet, not dark in subject matter. It was just good vs. evil. So was the Wind Waker. Twilight Princess isn't at all visually impressing compared to most titles on the Wii and GCN. Metroid Prime 3 looks better. Wind Waker looks better. Skyward Sword looks better. Resident Evil 4 looks better. And on and on.

Thankfully, Aonuma already confirmed that the game won't look anything like the tech demo, and when looking at how A Link Between Worlds turned out, he finally remembers what made Zelda great. Guess internet debates about it are irrelevent when I get what I want in the end.

Seriously, go play the Witcher or something. Zelda will never be the game you want.

 

Didn't he also say that the WW artstyle was risky? Also why would they make a demo that looks completely different than the final product?

And why can't I play both The Witcher and Zelda (which I will)?

 

the_dengle said:
oniyide said:
the_dengle said:

The OP's assertion that the Wii U is "limiting developers" by not being more powerful is hilarious in light of the massive delays Nintendo's first-party projects have seen because they're not used to working with such powerful hardware. More powerful hardware would only have resulted inworse delays. "We just got the word from up top, the Wii U has been made way more powerful. Up all of our assets to 1080p resolution." Yeah, that wouldn't be expensive or time-consuming.

But that makes no sense. its not a hardware issue then, its a " Ninty devs are incompetent issue" how come they are the only ones that seem to be having these issues? The Wii U isnt limiting anyone, their not limiting Ninty devs cause they barely no what they are doing anyway and its not limiting 3rd parties cause they dont even seem to be bothering in the first place.

But they aren't the only ones having these issues. Lots of other developers had the same issues... seven or eight years ago. Nintendo developers are NOT used to handling HD development, and I'll reiterate that for most Nintendo developers right now, "HD" means 720p. This thread is basically demanding that they be "allowed" to work with 1080p assets, which would be far more demanding on their budgets and dev time.

It's not a hardware issue. This has been established well enough. Pikmin 3 and the like certainly weren't delayed because they had to be toned down to accomodate the limited power of the Wii U, if that's what you're getting at. That's the opposite of what happened.

 

Which is pretty daft don't you think? How hard is it to hire a few professionals versed in HD developement to oversee their projects?



Around the Network
Frogger on 24 January 2014
F0X said:
spemanig said:
Mystro-Sama said:
spemanig said:
BeElite said:
spemanig said:
I'm a Nintendo fan. I think graphics don't matter. I think art style matters. I think performance does matter. I thought the Zelda Wii U tech demo was boring. I don't want Zelda for Wii U to look anything like the tech demo because that's not what Zelda is about. I think that Super Mario 3D World is beautiful because of it's art style. I think Super Mario Galaxy looks better because of it's art style.


what is it about ? why cant you get what u want from zelda why others get a more grown up visual zelda.


Because Zelda is quirky and humble and colorful. That tech demo was not quirky or humble. It was serious, desaturated, and show off-y. 

 

I think WW is the only Zelda to fall under that category. TP was pretty dark and depressing and also visually impressive compared to other games on the Wii and GC. Majoras Mask was kinda dark too. You can't judge what a series is based off one seperate example and lot of people prefered TP's art style over the other Zelda games. I liked the tech demo... like everyone else.


You think wrong. The only ones that don't are Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, which are objectively the weaker titles.


I get the dislike for Twilight Princess, but I don't see where Skyward Sword was lacking in the charm department. Then again, I might be the only one here that did all of the game's sidequests and therefore know more about the minor characters.


There is no hatred for Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword. I love them both. I really do. They are both wonderful. That's not where I'm getting at. What I am saying is that they both are weaker than their prior games.

In regards to Skyward Sword, I think it suffers from the 1-Up syndrome. Through out the game, you can tell that all it wants to do is be a better game than Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time. It tries to be epic and cinematic as opposed humble and personal. Like I said, I love Skyward Sword, but because of these things, it feels weaker. Skyward Sword chose it's art style because it was trying to look artistic. Wind Waker chose it's art style because it looked fun. (literally, Aonuma was stumped for ideas, his designer showed him a sketch for toon Link, he got excited with a bunch of ideas for fun combat, and it took off from there) That kind of thing. When Twilight Princess made it's "origin story," it was trying to be dark and creepy. When Majora's Mask had the moon have a face and always close and visable, it was trying to establish anxiety, hopelessness, and despiration. That sort of thing. There's more, but I think that illustrates things perfectly.



the_dengle on 24 January 2014
Mystro-Sama said:

Which is pretty daft don't you think? How hard is it to hire a few professionals versed in HD developement to oversee their projects?

How many professionals? For how long? Consider the cost of expanding your teams to accomodate HD development.

Where would these professionals come from? Do you pay a lot to snag some highly experienced designers from other major companies, or find some cheaper professionals who might not do such high quality work? Would these professionals be used to designing in Nintendo's style?

Let's take a couple of guys who worked on Asura's Wrath, and assign them to help out with Mario 3D World. Yeah, that'll work out great. They're totally on the same page as us on the art style.



mysteryman on 24 January 2014
the_dengle said:
Purple said:

The problem is the Wii U isn't cheap. The console is only a little bit cheaper and the games are just as expensive if not more so. It'd be like if Toyota priced their cars only a few hundred dollars cheaper than a Lamborghini.

And of course the hardware limits developers. Have you not seen what third parties are doing on the PS4? Battlefield 4 would not be possible on the Wii U. ACIV is nowhere near as good on the Wii U. It is therefore by definition limiting developers.

Wrong. It is only a little bit cheaper day one to customers. It is obviously significantly cheaper to the manufacturer -- the PS4 and XBO result in equal or greater losses for the manufacturer at purchase, and they make up for these losses by charging $50 or $60/year for a practically essential part of the console. You aren't paying $400 for your PS4. You're paying $400 + $50 for every year you plan on using its online capabilities, probably at least five years. That would be $650 right there, more than double the cost of the Wii U.

Don't forget power usage. The Wii U uses significantly less power when playing games, this saves a couple hundred dollars over the life of the console as well.

  • PS4: 139.8 W

  • Wii U: 33 W

  • XBONE: 119 W





Frogger on 24 January 2014
Mystro-Sama said:
spemanig said:
Mystro-Sama said:
spemanig said:
BeElite said:
spemanig said:
I'm a Nintendo fan. I think graphics don't matter. I think art style matters. I think performance does matter. I thought the Zelda Wii U tech demo was boring. I don't want Zelda for Wii U to look anything like the tech demo because that's not what Zelda is about. I think that Super Mario 3D World is beautiful because of it's art style. I think Super Mario Galaxy looks better because of it's art style.


what is it about ? why cant you get what u want from zelda why others get a more grown up visual zelda.


Because Zelda is quirky and humble and colorful. That tech demo was not quirky or humble. It was serious, desaturated, and show off-y. 

 

I think WW is the only Zelda to fall under that category. TP was pretty dark and depressing and also visually impressive compared to other games on the Wii and GC. Majoras Mask was kinda dark too. You can't judge what a series is based off one seperate example and lot of people prefered TP's art style over the other Zelda games. I liked the tech demo... like everyone else.


You think wrong. The only ones that don't are Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, which are objectively the weaker titles. You have chickens attacking you, a Mario and Luigi parody, a Goron King that loves to dance, A Zora King that likes to troll, and goofy characters through out Ocarina of Time. Just because Majora's Mask was dark doesn't mean that it wasn't quirky, humble, and colorful, because it was. It was a personal journey. A Zora Sang his dying wish to a rock tune. It was dark in subject matter, not in pallet. There where tones of purples, reds, and greens as opposed to greys in browns like in the tech demo. Twilight Princess was dark in pallet, not dark in subject matter. It was just good vs. evil. So was the Wind Waker. Twilight Princess isn't at all visually impressing compared to most titles on the Wii and GCN. Metroid Prime 3 looks better. Wind Waker looks better. Skyward Sword looks better. Resident Evil 4 looks better. And on and on.

Thankfully, Aonuma already confirmed that the game won't look anything like the tech demo, and when looking at how A Link Between Worlds turned out, he finally remembers what made Zelda great. Guess internet debates about it are irrelevent when I get what I want in the end.

Seriously, go play the Witcher or something. Zelda will never be the game you want.

 

Didn't he also say that the WW artstyle was risky? Also why would they make a demo that looks completely different than the final product?

And why can't I play both The Witcher and Zelda (which I will)?

He did, then he made A Link Between Worlds, which is just as colorful, humble, and quirky. And the tech demo uses Twilight Princess assets. It is completely separate from Zelda Wii U, so it won't have any impact on the final product when he doesn't use it.

You absolutely can. Play the Witcher to show off your hardware and Zelda U to have something with quirk, color, and humility.



Mystro-Sama on 24 January 2014
the_dengle said:
Mystro-Sama said:

Which is pretty daft don't you think? How hard is it to hire a few professionals versed in HD developement to oversee their projects?

How many professionals? For how long? Consider the cost of expanding your teams to accomodate HD development.

Where would these professionals come from? Do you pay a lot to snag some highly experienced designers from other major companies, or find some cheaper professionals who might not do such high quality work? Would these professionals be used to designing in Nintendo's style?

Let's take a couple of guys who worked on Asura's Wrath, and assign them to help out with Mario 3D World. Yeah, that'll work out great. They're totally on the same page as us on the art style.

 

They said they wanted the hardcore audience back. And being so long out of the loop you think it's going to be cheap? These professionals would be wise investments since games would actually be released as opposed to having massive droughts like in 2013 which would still hurt sales in end.