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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Graphical progress on Wii U so far

Dusk on 16 May 2015
ArchangelMadzz said:
Dusk said:

It did, better actually. But the issue is how it runs on any of them. 

I did a search on that image and it comes up with some news articles about Black Flag that use that image, and I doubt they'd use a screenshot from the Wii U version rather than next gen or PC version?


It's a bullshot, what do you expect? It's probably the same pic for each system. The game does look very good on all the systems though. As I said, the issue with it is that it doesn't run very well on any platform. Even on a high end PC it has hiccups, or at least did, unless it has been patched. Each version of the game looks pretty similar though, just a bit of texture difference and resolution for the most part. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz on 16 May 2015
Dusk said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

I did a search on that image and it comes up with some news articles about Black Flag that use that image, and I doubt they'd use a screenshot from the Wii U version rather than next gen or PC version?


It's a bullshot, what do you expect? It's probably the same pic for each system. The game does look very good on all the systems though. As I said, the issue with it is that it doesn't run very well on any platform. Even on a high end PC it has hiccups, or at least did, unless it has been patched. Each version of the game looks pretty similar though, just a bit of texture difference and resolution for the most part. 


I was able to get 1080p 40/50 fps on my 7870 2GB. But it didn't stutter at least.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Dusk on 16 May 2015
ArchangelMadzz said:
Dusk said:


It's a bullshot, what do you expect? It's probably the same pic for each system. The game does look very good on all the systems though. As I said, the issue with it is that it doesn't run very well on any platform. Even on a high end PC it has hiccups, or at least did, unless it has been patched. Each version of the game looks pretty similar though, just a bit of texture difference and resolution for the most part. 


I was able to get 1080p 40/50 fps on my 7870 2GB. But it didn't stutter at least.

Consistant? Nice. Even during synchros?



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

ArchangelMadzz on 16 May 2015
Dusk said:
ArchangelMadzz said:


I was able to get 1080p 40/50 fps on my 7870 2GB. But it didn't stutter at least.

Consistant? Nice. Even during synchros?


Yeah, the synchros would dip to low 30's but never below. 



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

chakkra on 16 May 2015
sc94597 said:
chakkra said:

For the life of me, I still cannot understand why (with such a big difference in specs) the Wii U is still just $50 cheaper than the X1. I mean, I know the tablet add to the cost but damn..  

Everyone involved in the Wii U's design (and making the contracts for the parts) should be fired.

Because the cost theory of value doesn't always hold. Additonally higher performance <=/=> higher costs. Look at the price of a new PS3. 

Yeah, I think the PS3 is overpriced as well imho. But the PS3 runs on an ancient arquitecture that might not be too cheap to produce nowadays (I'm just guessing here).

And yeah, I know that additonally higher performance <=/=> higher costs. That why I said that everyone involved in the Wii U's design (and making the contracts for the parts) should be fired.



Around the Network
PigPen on 16 May 2015
chakkra said:
sc94597 said:

Because the cost theory of value doesn't always hold. Additonally higher performance <=/=> higher costs. Look at the price of a new PS3. 

Yeah, I think the PS3 is overpriced as well imho. But the PS3 runs on an ancient arquitecture that might not be too cheap to produce nowadays (I'm just guessing here).

And yeah, I know that additonally higher performance <=/=> higher costs. That why I said that everyone involved in the Wii U's design (and making the contracts for the parts) should be fired.


What you think and reality are separate.  That's why Nintendo has been around for so long.  Everyone is Michael Pachter nowadays.

 

User has been moderated for this post and others.

- Shinobi-san



curl-6 on 16 May 2015
Dr.Vita said:
Is it true that Wii U hardware is better than PS3?
If yes why is there no game with better graphic than PS3? I mean there is no game on Wii U with The Last of Us or Uncharted 3 graphic. Even God of War 3 graphic hasn't been topped by Wii U (and God of War 3 is 2010). Don't understand me wrong, games like Bayonetta 2 looks good, but it could look much better if Wii U hardware is really better than PS3.

Wii U is more powerful overall, yes. PS3 has the stronger CPU, but Wii U has more than twice as much RAM and a better GPU.

The thing with games like God of War and Uncharted is that one of their primary focuses was pushing the best graphics possible, and they poured huge amounts of money, resources, and manpower into making that happen. On Wii U, there is no such drive to produce the system-pushing visuals; Nintendo has shown no interest in pushing tech, and third parties haven't made the necessary investment to do so.

That said, there have been Wii U games that are beyond PS3 capacity, like Trine 2 Director's Cut and Xenoblade Chronicles X. But in general, few devs have actually tried to push Wii U's chipset, while many poured immense resources into pushing the PS3.



NoirSon on 16 May 2015

Graphically, I think we've come to a point that aside from things like frame rates and certain animation tricks, there isn't too much incentive to push things further besides being the developer that pushed things further.

The Wii U is capable of great graphics that could stand not to far from what we see on PS4 and Xbox One. The main difference is the power and complexity. The Wii U is no slouch but some of the more complex things like AI and certain other techniques are still beyond it.


All that being said most games that a developer or fan say could be done on the Wii U are full of crap unless it is working some super advance AI or a massive amount of NPCs that run on unique schedules in a giant open world setting.



Dusk on 16 May 2015
NoirSon said:
Graphically, I think we've come to a point that aside from things like frame rates and certain animation tricks, there isn't too much incentive to push things further besides being the developer that pushed things further.

The Wii U is capable of great graphics that could stand not to far from what we see on PS4 and Xbox One. The main difference is the power and complexity. The Wii U is no slouch but some of the more complex things like AI and certain other techniques are still beyond it.


All that being said most games that a developer or fan say could be done on the Wii U are full of crap unless it is working some super advance AI or a massive amount of NPCs that run on unique schedules in a giant open world setting.


I agree, and I think that would be good for the industry as a whole. Stop pressing graphics so damn much, just make great games and save a bit of money while making it. Might help with coming up with some new ideas as well. 

Just my two cents. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

curl-6 on 16 May 2015
Norris2k said:

What do you see in this picture ? I'm looking at it, and it feels so outdated, gross, static and aliased... just look at the sorry blurred background, the old school shadows.

For other screenshots, some are very appealing visually speaking (I really like the nintendo 2014), but except for the platinum screenshot, you can see the extreme technical weakness : simplistic background (or a black one color background !), simpliest shadow. simple textures (or a form a gouraud shading), mostly cubic elements, very simple lighting, low poly everywhere... And I mean, it's far from being on par with the hardware. Ok, I do believe it's also for part art direction and style, but in term of internal objective it was clearly more "let's make the best impression we can on a tight schedule and for a tight cost" than "let's push the hardware !". I don't know if it's the same for you, but I have a friend that is totally nintendo fan (and there is nothing wrong with that, he like the games), and he's a great guy and it's always a pleasure to play with him... but when we talk graphics, you really feel he doesn't know anything about what happened outside nintendo for the last 10 years. I mean, the technical satisfaction when you see a lot of lights, a big monster on the screen, a texture moving like a strange blob, a bump mapping we got it 10 years ago. You see TLOU, and like it or not in term of style, that's a whole different level, texture are complex, not repetitives, the water is impressive, it's detailed, you can see up to a very far distance, the shaders are fine art, the lighting is rich, shadows are greats, the animations is detailed and interact with the background, etc.

Bold: A physically based lighting and shading model, which is something usually seen on PS4/Xbone/PC, nice wood textures, bokeh depth of field, soft-shadows, dynamic water simulation. Also, while this particular screen doesn't show it, the game also employs subsurface scattering and god rays. All notable upgrades over its Wii U predecessor Nano Assault Neo, which was already confirmed by its devs to be using techniques not possible on last gen systems.

Italic: Comparing Platinum, a dev never known for its tech prowess, to Naughty Dog, one of the most technically talented devs on the planet, isn't exactly a level playing field. But that aside, The Last of Us on PS3, while it looks very nice overall, frequently fails to maintain even a 30fps target, and it has its ugly moments too: