Wii U: Does it really matter if PS4 and Xbox 720 are more powerful?

The lack of power from the Wii U is the biggest reason I will not be picking up the console. My Wii has been collecting dust for two years and the biggest reason for this was because it was just last gen with waggle. The Wii U just seems like this gen with a touch screen.
 
10k said:
For a Nintendo/PC/PS3 gamer it matters not to me, the power of the Wii U. But for somebody who won't have the ridiculous disposable income I had this gen and wants to purchase one console for all his gaming needs (and use his PC too) the Wii U's third party support matters.
Click to expand...
This is likely me next generation. And I don't PC game anymore.

So to me, it matters if Wii U will be able to support Unreal 4 and at least be able to get downscaled games of Durango and Orbis games. I would be happy with a Wii U=PS2, PS4=Xbox, and 720=GameCube next gen. Barely noticable graphical and lightning techniques. Maybe Wii U will run Mass Effect 4 at 720p60 with 2xAA while PS4/720 will run it at 1080p60 4xAA.

I don't want a Wii scenario again where I buy maybe 4 games a year for it and then it collects dust in between first party launches.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If it can get ports of 720/PS4 third party games then I think I'll be happy with that side of things. All I want to avoid is the Wii scenario; it's my biggest worry at the moment having been burnt this generation. It's a shame Nintendo haven't done anything to show they have rectified that yet.
 
LCGeek said:
Maybe I should make it easy for you.

Both games are done at different times, by different teams with different power. You would have a real point if the PSX was capable of outputting the type of graphics as a 360. The expectation something old should be as good as the new is a dumb idea and you're showing why so keep making the hole bigger.

There are two different argument going on. Technical ability and art should never be mixed in your statements which you obviously can't tell. Me and others are saying that we are fine with how games look from that pov we aren't saying they are technical marvels despite their age because they aren't.

Also the responses are that if you expect me to read your mind exactly the way you do don't bother posting.
Click to expand...

LCGeek said:
I only know things like that after the fact not before it stop harping it on not relevant to my bigger point which I dispute.



You didn't use relative at all until that post you like most others here made a comparison that is basically apples to oranges and tried to declare a winner where there cannot be. Console could never hold up to any standard because unlike a pc where upgrades get dicey there is no hope for any upgrade to make generational improvements. Hence me saying why applying values of these types is useless as a gamer or to be more exact myself are extremely useless. I have actual benchmarks and do them all the time throwing up a few pictures and not discussing what made either of those games possible doesn't advanced these discussions it only makes more fud.

Even if there weren't another high end console to ever come out beyond a psx I wouldn't think that was crap. Did you miss that part of the psx era where many games struggled too look as good as RE2 or RE3. PSX games were a mess especially the texturing or filtering we were lucky to get what we did when we did considering the hardware involved.

For someone who doesn't remember the argument you just nailed what is clearly in dispute in this and another similar topic.



360 can do DX10 some features though is a mostly DX9/SM3 based product. WiiU is DX11/SM4 based with triple the ram that alone to me means in time we can see some really good things. Wii was never close to the hd twins it couldn't be as it lacked any shaders and had about 5 times less the ram.
Click to expand...

Why did you respond to me twice at different times with different responses? lol

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore, though. Or more to the point - you dont seem to have understood anything I've said. And looking back, thats really not my fault. I've made it pretty clear over and over what I was saying and you've just kind of went on about other crap instead as you're still doing. There has been no 'discussion' at all, which is why I thought I 'forgot' what we were talking about, but it turns out we were never really talking about anything in the first place. Again, just you rambling on about some other crap.

Sorry if I'm coming across as rude, but its a bit frustrating on my end. Seeya.
 
Jaffaboy said:
The lack of power from the Wii U is the biggest reason I will not be picking up the console. My Wii has been collecting dust for two years and the biggest reason for this was because it was just last gen with waggle. The Wii U just seems like this gen with a touch screen.
Click to expand...

it is a question of interests, I have enjoyed lots of titles in ps3/360 but the games I have put more time into them are for Wii . You, can also say ps3/360 are just last gen with better graphics.

Having said that, I don't like the tablet as much as I loved the motion control the first time I saw it.

I guess every one expects different things from the new hardware, for me graphics are already at a good point. I will only buy a new console if offers me something different than just more detail in graphics.
 
Kaijima said:
Another factor to keep in mind:

Don't assume that every time new hardware appears, the capability of developers 'resets' and 'everything is crap at first, then is ten times better two years later'.

The last decade has seen the tools and techniques, as well as skilled capability, for crafting games dramatically mature. In 2005, one might be able to build a PC that was more powerful than a 360 in some ways. That didn't mean a PC game of that year looked better than a launch 360 game.

Developers are far more prepared to take advantage of what hardware can do today than six years ago. The next generation of consoles shouldn't be a new world that throws everyone for a loop.

The flipside is that we may not see the insane difference over time in technology and quality that we saw on the same platforms between 2005 and 2012.

For instance, I wonder how much of a leg up Wii U will have just from 3x the ram (for game purposes) compared to the current generation. It seems so many bottlenecks in applying new technology in the current generation boil down to ram.

Again, going into this, I just keep getting a sixth generation vibe, rather than a seventh generation feeling.
Click to expand...

There was an article basically stating this around a year ago I think. The techniques that developers will use on next gen machines are techniques they already learned this gen. There's also the fact that engines like Luminous, Frostbite 2, idTech 5, and CryEngine 3 are already next gen engines being contorted onto current gen hardware. Even UE3 is taking on "next gen" features on PC right now.

That said, developers very well might end up figuring out newer, better techniques as soon as they get the chance to stretch their legs on next gen hardware.
 
Hero said:
Extend that question to PS4/720 and Wii U then. Not hard here.


I'm not missing the point, this is exactly what I'm saying. The PS4 and 720 will definitely be more powerful than Wii U by virtue of them launching later and them being extremely hardware heavy. The big question here is if the difference in power is going to be a deterrent for developers to not publish games like Assassin's Creed 4 or Call of Duty MW4 on Wii U without sacrificing a little bit of graphical fidelity.


I'm not talking about the division per quarter or per year.


Not much to learn from you, sorry.


Where was recording your gameplay touted by MS or Sony as an important feature for next gen?

Nope, I was defining them because they weren't clear enough for you the first time.


That's not what I was getting at. There's faulty logic in "You need to spend billions on R&D for a console so you might as well go all the way to make a huge generational leap where you don't become profitable until near the end of the generation."

Haha, Microsoft and the hardcore market? You mean the one that they gave up on ever since they got a taste of that Kinect success? Smart Glass for the hardcore, so you can know where Jon Snow is in Westeros.
Click to expand...

So basically you want to spin, move the goal post, ignore, and assume? You've done every one of these in this very post. Congrats you've proven how a conversation with you is impossible.
 
KageMaru said:
So basically you want to spin, move the goal post, ignore, and assume? You've done every one of these in this very post. Congrats you've proven how a conversation with you is impossible.
Click to expand...

I hope you weren't captain of your debate team in high school.
 
Hero said:
I hope you weren't captain of your debate team in high school.
Click to expand...

And that's the problem with you. You want to debate, not discuss. At least with people who don't put all things Nintendo up on a pedestal. I've seen multiple people make logical posts to you and you remained just as ignorant. It's a waste and with that I'm done.
 
Of course it matters - but that depends on how you ask the question. That's not even up for dispute, really. More hardware power equals more gameplay opportunities equals potential for more visual splendor which, because gaming is an inherently visual medium, is a huge part of how one evaluates a game and how much fun it is. Thomas Holt has the right of it.

It's also demonstrably false that more power makes a system sell better or if it's something that is pivotal for the gaming public at large. If you're evaluating its worth in terms of sales, then I'd say we have enough evidence to suggest that the market as a whole only value visuals within a point.

To me, hardware power is certainly just as important to me as a good controller. But I've always been

Visuals = Gameplay in terms of how I approach a games merit.
 
The question this thread asks is waaay too premature.

So far we haven's seen a launch price for WiiU and the third party support is still a giant question mark. Hell we barely know the full spec's of the WiiU.

Oh and there's the little thing about the fact that there's nothing concretely known about the system spec's for the PS4 & 720. So ummm there's literally nothing to compare the WiiU to.
 
KageMaru said:
And that's the problem with you. You want to debate, not discuss. At least with people who don't put all things Nintendo up on a pedestal. I've seen multiple people make logical posts to you and you remained just as ignorant. It's a waste and with that I'm done.
Click to expand...

My first post was a question for discussion and you went into asshole mode and since then I've explained my position several times to which you either go "lol ignorance" or "lol moving the goal post." That's not a discussion either, is it?
 
Seanspeed said:
Why did you respond to me twice at different times with different responses? lol

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore, though. Or more to the point - you dont seem to have understood anything I've said. And looking back, thats really not my fault. I've made it pretty clear over and over what I was saying and you've just kind of went on about other crap instead as you're still doing. There has been no 'discussion' at all, which is why I thought I 'forgot' what we were talking about, but it turns out we were never really talking about anything in the first place. Again, just you rambling on about some other crap.

Sorry if I'm coming across as rude, but its a bit frustrating on my end. Seeya.
Click to expand...

Why are you responding to my points 90mins afterwards if there is nothing to discuss. Again if you want something to end you don't respond but nice seeing you like to add more words to a non discussion discussion. Me I'm shameless in this area you can do w/e.

My main point is the same as it always was me and most gamers don't agree if you find older games to be BAD in looks or mechanics just because we have shiny new ones to play with. Not saying you can't just there is no objective merit to what you're saying.

I don't find you rude or anyone here this is what miscommuincation brings. As for the double post all I got is three letters ATT and the phrase delay. Really it's that bad and it happens all the time.
 
Hero said:
My first post was a question for discussion and you went into asshole mode and since then I've explained my position several times to which you either go "lol ignorance" or "lol moving the goal post." That's not a discussion either, is it?
Click to expand...
Lol I almost spit my food out.

A question for a discussion?

Since when does a straw men that you spend 200 words pissing on and then spend subsequent responses and posts making condescending and arrogant responses that continue to move the goal posts suggest to you a healthy discussion? you were looking to pick a fight, no one here is blind to that.

You should be in politics because your spin and revisionism is godlike.
 
Amir0x said:
Of course it matters - but that depends on how you ask the question. That's not even up for dispute, really. More hardware power equals more gameplay opportunities equals potential for more visual splendor which, because gaming is an inherently visual medium, is a huge part of how one evaluates a game and how much fun it is. Thomas Holt has the right of it.

It's also demonstrably false that more power makes a system sell better or if it's something that is pivotal for the gaming public at large. If you're evaluating its worth in terms of sales, then I'd say we have enough evidence to suggest that the market as a whole only value visuals within a point.

To me, hardware power is certainly just as important to me as a good controller. But I've always been

Visuals = Gameplay in terms of how I approach a games merit.
Click to expand...
We've been playing the best video games in the movie theater all this time, my God ...
 
10k said:
So to me, it matters if Wii U will be able to support Unreal 4 and at least be able to get downscaled games of Durango and Orbis games. I would be happy with a Wii U=PS2, PS4=Xbox, and 720=GameCube next gen. Barely noticable graphical and lightning techniques. Maybe Wii U will run Mass Effect 4 at 720p60 with 2xAA while PS4/720 will run it at 1080p60 4xAA.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get your hopes up for a Wii U = PS2, PS4 = Xbox situation. The Xbox and Gamecube were more powerful than the PS2, but weren't really pushed by developers the same way the PS2 was. Because the PS2 was the market leader, it received the most attention from developers and they really squeezed some amazing things out of it. Does anyone really think the big developers are going to primarily focus on the Wii U over the other next gen consoles?

Also, I think the performance difference between the machines will be greater than the PS2 - Xbox difference. Maybe more like a Dreamcast - Xbox difference. But, that's just speculation until we see what Microsoft/Sony bring to the table.
 
Shion said:
Zelda and Metroid deserve better hardware.
Click to expand...
They deserve better staff far more than better hardware. Especially Metroid.

Actually, given their peaks can be argued as being on SNES (SNES or N64 for Zelda) maybe they are actually SHACKLED by having too powerful hardware.
 
It doesn't matter at all for Nintendo. Their customers care more about the cost then its graphics. So in the end it will probably be the best thing for them. For me, as a gamer, current gen hardware is starting to show its age. I'm just not willing to plop down money for more of the same. Don't get me wrong, 1st party Sony is pulling some black magic voodoo with their games, but a resolution/aa boost couldn't hurt.
 
Reading this thread:

Disagree with KevinCow
Disagree with Hero
Agree with KageMaru

New hardware is always an amazing time for the Internet.
 
Poimandres said:
I wouldn't get your hopes up for a Wii U = PS2, PS4 = Xbox situation. The Xbox and Gamecube were more powerful than the PS2, but weren't really pushed by developers the same way the PS2 was. Because the PS2 was the market leader, it received the most attention from developers and they really squeezed some amazing things out of it. Does anyone really think the big developers are going to primarily focus on the Wii U over the other next gen consoles?

Also, I think the performance difference between the machines will be greater than the PS2 - Xbox difference. Maybe more like a Dreamcast - Xbox difference. But, that's just speculation until we see what Microsoft/Sony bring to the table.
Click to expand...

Better if you compare it to current Gen. You would have ps360 as ps2 and wiiu as Xbox. So for the next 1- 2 years wiiu will be the most powerful.
 
USC-fan said:
Better if you compare it to current Gen. You would have ps360 as ps2 and wiiu as Xbox. So for the next 1- 2 years wiiu will be the most powerful.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a reasonable comparison. Unfortunately 1-2 years is usually how long it takes for a system to find its footing and start showing what it's really capable of. By the time the Wii U is showing its true colours, it will get upstaged by the PS4/720.
 
The fact we have a thread like this pretty much every day is proof yes, it does.

As I said, this issue will never go away for Nintendo. Only grow.
 
I honestly don't care anymore, I'm only getting a Wii U for Nintendo's games anyways.

I've come to accept that Nintendo is going to stay a console behind for their systems.
 
I think Wii U will be fine.

But I do a think they missed a prime opportunity. All they needed to do was have a smaller gap between their system and the 360 and PS4 in terms of graphics. Personally I would have been happy with a Wii 2. Exactly the same as the Wii, same controllers, etc just HD and a lot more horsepower under the hood.
 
If Nintendo showed a reel of games during their E3 press conference that clearly showed a graphical difference between what the 360 or PS3 currently offers and what the Wii U will offer, then a lot more people would have been sold on the system. Microsoft and Sony probably breathed huge sighs of relief when they saw the visual fidelity of Nintendo's games. It'll be tough to achieve with the gamepad the same success they had with the wiimote, but good graphics pretty much sells itself.
 
Is this everyones first console launch?

Jumping to conclusions already!

Yes Nintendo did a better job showing off the technical abilities of their machine in E3 2011. I think we can all agree this years E3 wasn't the best example for the console.

But then again no console launch has been amazing imo anyway.

I think most people just need to take a back seat and wait for some real development time to brew. The games we will be seeing at next E3 will be a true test for the Wii U technical abilities as the launch window will have passed and we will get our first peak at games that have had 2 years or more development time and optimization's to middleware.

If anything the rumors about the Wii U feature sets makes me feel comfortable that the Wii U will be fine against the other consoles. Not that it really matters except for multiplatform ports.

As of right now I'm not biting on the Wii U but its not because of assumptions on power but just because I haven't seen any really compelling software to make me want it day 1. That could change with other titles being announced in the coming months but right now I'll wait for the 2nd generation of software to start showing itself as I think most people should.
 
jdmonmou said:
No they didn't.
Click to expand...

Well I think the technical demos were a better demonstration.

Basically I'm just trying to say that launch software means shit. Its usually always ports or or projects that were started on previous hardware to speed up development time.
 
richman555 said:
Personally I would have been happy with a Wii 2. Exactly the same as the Wii, same controllers, etc just HD and a lot more horsepower under the hood.
Click to expand...

That would have never sold well. You have to have some kind of gimmick to get the mass market.

An hd wii would not get them back on board. That is why they had to come up with the 2nd screen. They just dont have app like wii sport to sell to everyone, their mother and their grand mother.


Soroc said:
Well I think the technical demos were a better demonstration.

Basically I'm just trying to say that launch software means shit. Its usually always ports or or projects that were started on previous hardware to speed up development time.
Click to expand...
But looking at any system launch you can tell a difference. Its like when the ps3 launch. You could tell it was a step beyond the ps2 but the games looked the same a x360. Same way with the wiiu. Games look like the ps360. They are a step ahead the wii.
 
I'm not bothered: as long as it manages to look ok on a HDTV and not a hideous mess I'm satisfied, and it seems they've got that bit covered.
 
jdmonmou said:
No they didn't.
Click to expand...
Yes they did. They showed off that Zelda tech demo, the bird tech demo, and tons of 360/PS3 ports. The only downside were those HD Wii Sports-esque games and NSMB Mii.

This year they showed off a Wii up-port Pikmin 3, A slightly improved NSMB Mii, Nintendoland, and 360/PS3 ports that ran worse. Zombii U is probably one of the more impressive games but it looks inconsistent and looks like an average 360/PS3 game.

2011 was more impressive, if only for the Zelda + Bird demo.
 
So....

ITT:
Nintendo fans: Of course it doesn't matter.
Everyone else: It could matter/It matters to me.

... seems to sum it up.

AzaK said:
Really? The Zelda demo and Japanese Garden Demo both looked way better than anything I saw coming out of E3. If you have other info, links, videos then please share.
Click to expand...
If you mean a better showcase than this Nintendo E3, then yeah. If you mean a showcase as some sort of discernible leap over current gen games on the HD twins, I'm not so sure.

Frankly, people just seemed like they were entranced by HD Zelda.
 
shinra-bansho said:
So....

ITT:
Nintendo fans: Of course it doesn't matter.
Everyone else: It could matter/It matters to me.

... seems to sum it up.
Click to expand...

I'm no particular Nintendo fan, I just know what to expect from them on the graphics front. There's no point fighting it, I'll get my mad visuals fix somewhere else.
 
You know, a problem with pulling out the "Of course Nintendo fans would say that" card... is that around here most people are hardcore and buy all the consoles, or buy the Nintendo console + one other.

It ultimately doesn't matter to most hardcore gamers if Wii U is shoulder to shoulder with the other guys because they're going to have the other systems and games anyway.

I think what most "Nintendo fans" are actually getting at is more like, "Wii U looks capable enough that it's not a problem this time". That is not the same as "Oh wow graphics don't matter at all!" I doubt most people who like Nintendo would run around crying if Wii U was as powerful as PS4 - so long as there weren't downsides to that, like development costs screwing what software got made (I.E., no Xenoblade type games).
 
For Nintendo and people who love their games, it probably doesn't matter.

I think Nintendo should be more worried about its casual base. Console power doesn't matter to them either, but I don't think they care for Nintendo anymore because of Apple, which is the bigger issue IMO, for both the Wii U and 3DS.
 
yes, it does.

Take a game with the crowed AI mechanics of something like assassins creed, or the physics puzzles of a game like half life 2. These mechanics are tied directly with the power of the systems, and they weren't possible on things like the snes or n64. Or even open world games for that matter, or games that allow for more events to occur.
 
I think it does matter based on developer support, of course always gameplay over graphics but when people are debating if your next gen console is even as powerful as current gen hardware it is a problem.
 
AzaK said:
Really? The Zelda demo and Japanese Garden Demo both looked way better than anything I saw coming out of E3. If you have other info, links, videos then please share.
Click to expand...

They weren't demos. They were lies.
If it's not gameplay, it's not showing off the game. "Real time render" of movies don't count.

It's like that MGS3 cutscene viewer at the 3DS debut. MGS3 looks like shit when it came out.
 
Yeah Wii U is either destined to get all the main 3rd party games OR recieve literally no support because the other platforms are too advanced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Polygon: I tested Xbox's powerful - and heavy - new handheld
2 3
136
243
Gambit2483 replied
Is Xbox really just a controller now?
2
81
642
Zacfoldor replied
Will AI and powerful GPU’s lead to more sophisticated gameplay?
32
1K
SimTourist replied
  • Locked
We are like one person, how does it affect you
1
49
Calverz replied
XBOX MAY UPDATE : REWARD POINTS, Retro Classics, game Streaming , and MORE
22
321
DonJimbo replied
Top Bottom