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

Forums - Nintendo - After seeing Bayonetta 2 and 'X' in action today...

 

The PS4's power seems...

Better, but not THAT much better anymore... 241 15.42%
 
Are you crazy?! The PS4 is GOD! 349 22.33%
 
The Wii U is clearly unde... 741 47.41%
 
The PS4 is selling better... 36 2.30%
 
I think I'll be buying a... 191 12.22%
 
Total:1,558
Carl on 16 February 2014
ZyroXZ2 said:

Anyone else kind of feel like the PS4's power gap isn't that big anymore?  I mean, sure it's more powerful, but after seeing these two, I don't find myself thinking "Oh, how much better this would have looked on PS4"... Am I the only one that thinks that people will stop thinking the Wii U is underpowered after these two games see daylight?


No.

X looks quite impressive, Ill admit... But Bayonetta 2 doesnt look like anything overly special in the visuals department.

Despite this, youre comparing games that will be releasing 20 Months (or way later in the case of X) after the Wii U launched to games released at PS4 launch. When we get the likes of The Witcher 3, Final Fantasy XV, The Division, Dragon Age 3, Uncharted and so on releasing and we see what the PS4 is really capable of, then I think the power difference will really start to show its legs. Hell I cant wait to see how the next Assassin's Creed looks on PS4 after AC4 blew me away with the ship battles.

On top of all that, Rockstar will eventually flex some muscle and at some point we will get developers like Crytek and DICE developing games specifically for Gen 8 systems and not being limited with cross-gen stuff. You will have the likes of Naughty Dog, Santa Monica and Polyphony Digital mastering the tools and blowing everyone away again.

I think its too early to assume or feel like the power gap isnt big, when the power gap hasnt even been shown yet.



                            

Around the Network
curl-6 on 16 February 2014
oniyide said:

I dont buy that trailer we saw was "gameplay" the one in 2013. I think it was tailored trailer just like everybody else does. Now the more recent one, yeah thats gameplay even had teh icons on screen and everything.  Was the Direct English or Japanese. Cause i figured they were talking strictly English releases.

Direct gameplay footage was in Japanese; I'd presume dubbing has not been done yet.

And the Jan 2013 trailer had a HUD, icons, damage numbers, and such. Obviously it was edited together instead of uncut, but it showed gameplay.



curl-6 on 16 February 2014
mine said:

For me its not about GPU or CPU power. The Wii U should be at least more than 3 times more powerful than the Wii. And many of the "last gen" Wii titles are the best ones out there.

Try 10 times as powerful. At least.



JoeTheBro on 16 February 2014
mine said:
JoeTheBro said:
mine said:

It makes me laugh reading those posts regarding "fluid simulation" etc. . Who cares? Nobody - I repeat - NOBODY wants this in a game. Like nobody wants real driving simulations as this wouldn't be fun at all ( < 0,5 % might have the skill to drive a F1 car ).

 

No. Fluid simulation has very little to do with gameplay. Don't get confused by the simulation part of the name. It's just a feature that could potentially be used to push graphics.

Good point. I know the difference. And I'm fine with the "fluid simulation" as done in Pikmin or Super Mario Galaxy

A real fluid simulation might make sense in a type of "Zen" game where you stare at the water. But if there is action going on nodoby is going to focus on such little details. Playing Metroid Prime (GC port) on the Wii it's astonishing how fast you'll be sucked in and forget about that low-res textures. 

Those graphics effects are just a way to differentiate in a market where innovation doesn't come in buckets but in small drops. I'm to old to be impressed by those things if they don't affect gameplay in a huge way...

I think that the "next big immersion thing" is going to be the Oculus Rift. As Oculus is aiming "for the real thing" there is no PC at the moment capable of handling the GPU demands. So we've to wait maybe two years until there will be high-end systems and up to four until its ready for main stream.. .

Yeah I get were you're coming from, but that doesn't make sense to me.



Links

fatslob-:O on 16 February 2014
mine said:

Its a miracle that AMD is still in business. Just take a look at their quarterly earnings... 

Guess what - X1 / PS4 have both a shit CPU and a low /midrange (at best) GPU. 

Yet it's still better than what the WII U has to offer ... You probably don't even know their performance equivalent hardware in the PC space.

mine said:

Nothing will stop the smartphone performance train. It will even accellerate as Intel isn't going to stay besides and look how ARM is threatening their butter-and-bread business in long term. Expect to have the next-gen Core-i a way better GPU built in which might match the PS4/X1 ones. So within TWO years from now LOW END desktop OFFICE PCs will have that kind of graphics.

Everything will stop the performance train cause there's a photlithographic limit on die shrinking and smartphones still have to obey TDP limits so smartphones will only start being a threat AFTER 10 YEARS. LOW END ? LOL Intel's best iGPU is the GT3e and it only clocks in at 352 Gflops. More like 6 YEARS before those low end core i3s will start to actually match those consoles LOL.

mine said:

Just remember: when the N64 was launched it had SGI 3D technology and sold at a price of a Voodoo 3Dfx card. The needed PC or Mac at that time did cost at least four times the price of the N64. THAT was a High-End console.

Not anymore it wasn't LOL. Once Rage Pro released in 1997 it took a shit on the N64.

mine said:

The 360 was released with a new GPU gen in a special configuration you couldn't buy for at least one year after its release. The PS3 had a Cell CPU whose successor sold as a PCI card also at least three times the price of the PS3.

That didn't matter seeing as how PC had another equivalent which was the Geforce 7800 GTX. That successor was just a better yield of the PS3 chip.

mine said:

As I already wrote: PS4 and X1 are the least capable console gen compared to the PC at launch date. 

And this has a reason - technology is changing to fast. Neither PS4 nor X1 can handle 2K. Not to mention 4K or an Oculus Rift which are "just around the corner". Both even lack basic techologies like Nvidias Gsync which will leapfrog the perceived graphic fidelity (and will ease the burden of programming graphics intense games).

Already now a midrange PC delivers better graphics than a PS4 or X1 ableit at a neglible (compared to previous console generations) higher price. 

They both lack gsync not because their weak but because it's a proprietary solution. (You having trouble keeping up with the master race ? LOL) AMD has another thing up their sleeve called Freesync. A mid ranged PC will match a PS4 but the X1 is a different story.

mine said:

So this whole thread is pointless. PS4 owners blaming the Wii U not having "up to date" graphics should sell their console and buy a PC. 

Either you're here for the games or not. If you are it doesn't matter how a Bayonetta or "X" might look on a PS4 or X1 - AS THERE ARE NONE.

You wish these threads were pointless but there's clearly a standard. People don't wish for "up to date" graphics, what they wish for is something "acceptable" by consumers and the WII U clearly failed in that regard and it's sales prove otherwise.

mine said:

If you want to play them you've to buy a Wii U. Same other way around - it doesn't make sense to lament that a PS4 exlusive might be enjoyable on a Wii U with downgraded graphics too. As there wouldn't be a port.

It's funny that the "graphics" argumentation of the X1 and PS4 owners will fall on their feets and hurt them badly. It's already happening with Titanfall on the X1. And as I've shown the PS4 will be not perceived "top notch" anymore when other devices will simply deliver much better graphics for its launch price while the PS4 might be preceived as good-enough at a drastically lowered price...

No shit that there will be other devices that will deliver better graphics so stop the damage control.



Around the Network
ZyroXZ2 on 16 February 2014

This thread, I don't even... I can't even...

Wow... *facepalm*

This thread will forever be both my baby and my curse on VGChartz, lmao

I also skimmed some pages (I really can't be reading every post, and I can see some later posts from people entering the thread late clearly lacked reading of the prior pages, which I can't blame them for!), and while there is lots to say and correct, or even debate, I want to reiterate the purpose of the thread that has been talked about somewhere in the middle...

I have never stated anything saying the Wii U will achieve parity with the PS4, and clearly acknowledged right in the very first post that the PS4 is more powerful. But it isn't GAME-CHANGING more powerful. I clearly don't think I will play Bayonetta 2 or 'X' and think "this game would be so much better on PS4". This is the point that I think some people have unintentionally admitted to. Instead of the lame Nintendo-hating arguments that Bayonetta 2 should be on PS4 because the PS4 "stomps all over" the Wii U is just beyond foolish. The Wii U can, and most likely will, create experiences both graphically and gameplay-wise that will prove the system IS part of the current generation with the PS4/XBox1. It's weaker, but not underpowered. It is wholly capable of creating the types of worlds, gameplay, and graphics that younger, modern gamers expect from the current generation with the PS4/XBox1.

And also, I skimmed past something about the PS4/XBox1 using all 8GB of RAM for games, but the PS4 only uses 4.5GB of its RAM for games at the current moment (with some PR speak about 1GB of flexible RAM that has yet to be proven). Also, XBox1 uses 5GB of its RAM for games.

I stand by my belief that this generation will NOT see the graphical leap the last generation did, the PS4/XBox1 are closer to their capacity than people realize, we will only see optimization improvements (more clever ways to achieve a particular graphical "effect" without using the actual effect, hence a smaller performance hit on the hardware, one needs only to look at the myriad of forms of anti-aliasing to see what I mean). These improvements will lend to small amounts of extra performance here and there, but nothing will amount to anything ground-breaking. Anything ground-breaking is already occurring on PCs (NVIDIA's talking head tech demo, for example), and is beyond the capacity of the PS4/XBox1 on a scale anything other than a singular tech demo, which is its current form even on PC.

... I'm so proud I could make such a massive thread on VGChartz... My Chartz cherry has been popped, no?



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/
fatslob-:O on 16 February 2014

ZyroXZ2 said:
This thread, I don't even... I can't even...

Wow... *facepalm*

This thread will forever be both my baby and my curse on VGChartz, lmao

I also skimmed some pages (I really can't be reading every post, and I can see some later posts from people entering the thread late clearly lacked reading of the prior pages, which I can't blame them for!), and while there is lots to say and correct, or even debate, I want to reiterate the purpose of the thread that has been talked about somewhere in the middle...

I have never stated anything saying the Wii U will achieve parity with the PS4, and clearly acknowledged right in the very first post that the PS4 is more powerful. But it isn't GAME-CHANGING more powerful. I clearly don't think I will play Bayonetta 2 or 'X' and think "this game would be so much better on PS4". This is the point that I think some people have unintentionally admitted to. Instead of the lame Nintendo-hating arguments that Bayonetta 2 should be on PS4 because the PS4 "stomps all over" the Wii U is just beyond foolish. The Wii U can, and most likely will, create experiences both graphically and gameplay-wise that will prove the system IS part of the current generation with the PS4/XBox1. It's weaker, but not underpowered. It is wholly capable of creating the types of worlds, gameplay, and graphics that younger, modern gamers expect from the current generation with the PS4/XBox1.

It's all relative ... What you consider to be "game changing" is different for other people.

And also, I skimmed past something about the PS4/XBox1 using all 8GB of RAM for games, but the PS4 only uses 4.5GB of its RAM for games at the current moment (with some PR speak about 1GB of flexible RAM that has yet to be proven). Also, XBox1 uses 5GB of its RAM for games.

Sony and Microsoft hasn't released their figures yet on how much RAM the OS uses ...

I stand by my belief that this generation will NOT see the graphical leap the last generation did, the PS4/XBox1 are closer to their capacity than people realize, we will only see optimization improvements (more clever ways to achieve a particular graphical "effect" without using the actual effect, hence a smaller performance hit on the hardware, one needs only to look at the myriad of forms of anti-aliasing to see what I mean). These improvements will lend to small amounts of extra performance here and there, but nothing will amount to anything ground-breaking. Anything ground-breaking is already occurring on PCs (NVIDIA's talking head tech demo, for example), and is beyond the capacity of the PS4/XBox1 on a scale anything other than a singular tech demo, which is its current form even on PC.


... I'm so proud I could make such a massive thread on VGChartz... My Chartz cherry has been popped, no?





ZyroXZ2 on 16 February 2014
fatslob-:O said:

ZyroXZ2 said:
This thread, I don't even... I can't even...

Wow... *facepalm*

This thread will forever be both my baby and my curse on VGChartz, lmao

I also skimmed some pages (I really can't be reading every post, and I can see some later posts from people entering the thread late clearly lacked reading of the prior pages, which I can't blame them for!), and while there is lots to say and correct, or even debate, I want to reiterate the purpose of the thread that has been talked about somewhere in the middle...

I have never stated anything saying the Wii U will achieve parity with the PS4, and clearly acknowledged right in the very first post that the PS4 is more powerful. But it isn't GAME-CHANGING more powerful. I clearly don't think I will play Bayonetta 2 or 'X' and think "this game would be so much better on PS4". This is the point that I think some people have unintentionally admitted to. Instead of the lame Nintendo-hating arguments that Bayonetta 2 should be on PS4 because the PS4 "stomps all over" the Wii U is just beyond foolish. The Wii U can, and most likely will, create experiences both graphically and gameplay-wise that will prove the system IS part of the current generation with the PS4/XBox1. It's weaker, but not underpowered. It is wholly capable of creating the types of worlds, gameplay, and graphics that younger, modern gamers expect from the current generation with the PS4/XBox1.

It's all relative ... What you consider to be "game changing" is different for other people.

And also, I skimmed past something about the PS4/XBox1 using all 8GB of RAM for games, but the PS4 only uses 4.5GB of its RAM for games at the current moment (with some PR speak about 1GB 512MB of flexible RAM that has yet to be proven). Also, XBox1 uses 5GB of its RAM for games.

Sony and Microsoft hasn't released their figures yet on how much RAM the OS uses ...

I stand by my belief that this generation will NOT see the graphical leap the last generation did, the PS4/XBox1 are closer to their capacity than people realize, we will only see optimization improvements (more clever ways to achieve a particular graphical "effect" without using the actual effect, hence a smaller performance hit on the hardware, one needs only to look at the myriad of forms of anti-aliasing to see what I mean). These improvements will lend to small amounts of extra performance here and there, but nothing will amount to anything ground-breaking. Anything ground-breaking is already occurring on PCs (NVIDIA's talking head tech demo, for example), and is beyond the capacity of the PS4/XBox1 on a scale anything other than a singular tech demo, which is its current form even on PC.


... I'm so proud I could make such a massive thread on VGChartz... My Chartz cherry has been popped, no?

Sony and Microsoft hasn't released their figures yet on how much RAM the OS uses ...

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/26/35gb-of-playstation-4-ram-reportedly-reserved-for-os

http://gimmegimmegames.com/2013/05/microsoft-confirms-xbox-one-os-uses-3gb-ram-5gb-ram-for-games/

Even I had it off... so to correct the above... (PS4 only has 512MB of flexible RAM that can be added to games)



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/
fatslob-:O on 16 February 2014
ZyroXZ2 said:
fatslob-:O said:

ZyroXZ2 said:
This thread, I don't even... I can't even...

Wow... *facepalm*

This thread will forever be both my baby and my curse on VGChartz, lmao

I also skimmed some pages (I really can't be reading every post, and I can see some later posts from people entering the thread late clearly lacked reading of the prior pages, which I can't blame them for!), and while there is lots to say and correct, or even debate, I want to reiterate the purpose of the thread that has been talked about somewhere in the middle...

I have never stated anything saying the Wii U will achieve parity with the PS4, and clearly acknowledged right in the very first post that the PS4 is more powerful. But it isn't GAME-CHANGING more powerful. I clearly don't think I will play Bayonetta 2 or 'X' and think "this game would be so much better on PS4". This is the point that I think some people have unintentionally admitted to. Instead of the lame Nintendo-hating arguments that Bayonetta 2 should be on PS4 because the PS4 "stomps all over" the Wii U is just beyond foolish. The Wii U can, and most likely will, create experiences both graphically and gameplay-wise that will prove the system IS part of the current generation with the PS4/XBox1. It's weaker, but not underpowered. It is wholly capable of creating the types of worlds, gameplay, and graphics that younger, modern gamers expect from the current generation with the PS4/XBox1.

It's all relative ... What you consider to be "game changing" is different for other people.

And also, I skimmed past something about the PS4/XBox1 using all 8GB of RAM for games, but the PS4 only uses 4.5GB of its RAM for games at the current moment (with some PR speak about 1GB 512MB of flexible RAM that has yet to be proven). Also, XBox1 uses 5GB of its RAM for games.

Sony and Microsoft hasn't released their figures yet on how much RAM the OS uses ...

I stand by my belief that this generation will NOT see the graphical leap the last generation did, the PS4/XBox1 are closer to their capacity than people realize, we will only see optimization improvements (more clever ways to achieve a particular graphical "effect" without using the actual effect, hence a smaller performance hit on the hardware, one needs only to look at the myriad of forms of anti-aliasing to see what I mean). These improvements will lend to small amounts of extra performance here and there, but nothing will amount to anything ground-breaking. Anything ground-breaking is already occurring on PCs (NVIDIA's talking head tech demo, for example), and is beyond the capacity of the PS4/XBox1 on a scale anything other than a singular tech demo, which is its current form even on PC.


... I'm so proud I could make such a massive thread on VGChartz... My Chartz cherry has been popped, no?

Sony and Microsoft hasn't released their figures yet on how much RAM the OS uses ...

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/26/35gb-of-playstation-4-ram-reportedly-reserved-for-os

http://gimmegimmegames.com/2013/05/microsoft-confirms-xbox-one-os-uses-3gb-ram-5gb-ram-for-games/

Even I had it off... so to correct the above... (PS4 only has 512MB of flexible RAM that can be added to games)

You gotta know the difference between digital foundry speculation and PR statements.

Sony has never disclosed the operating system's reserved memory. The same applies to microsoft.



JoeTheBro on 16 February 2014
fatslob-:O said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/26/35gb-of-playstation-4-ram-reportedly-reserved-for-os

http://gimmegimmegames.com/2013/05/microsoft-confirms-xbox-one-os-uses-3gb-ram-5gb-ram-for-games/

Even I had it off... so to correct the above... (PS4 only has 512MB of flexible RAM that can be added to games)

You gotta know the difference between digital foundry speculation and PR statements.

Sony has never disclosed the operating system's reserved memory. The same applies to microsoft.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft did disclose the amount of reserved RAM. They talk a lot about their specs, oddly enough.

Sony hasn't said anything though. They just gave a clarification of what flex ram is.

How much RAM do you think the PS4 allocates to games?



Links