Support NeoGAF

[Shaheed79]

There will be 720p games on PS4/xbox3, but they won't look like PS3/360 games.

For sure they won't. Neither will WiiU games once the hardware's more modern features are being properly utilized.

Yes, absolutely. See my posts in the Orbis and Durango threads. Wii U just seems to be the most disappointing.

Ah, I see. It's just that some of the people debating along side of you assume that Orb and Rango will be able to do those things and completely marginalize the WiiU. I don't see that happening.

 

[M°°nblade]

I already admitted that my initial post was off by 0.6 in a single instance, and thanked you for correcting me. I also pointed out how this only marginally changes the actual argument. But please, do continue to enjoy your victory.

"Goalpost moving" would involve me making up some elaborate reason as to why PDZ does not "count", as you can see ikioi doing with the 720p issue, not admitting that I was wrong.

true resolutions of most complex 3D games on both systems are not 720p!
-> posts list, yes they are
Most of the 720p games on those lists are not complex or block busters!
-> looks at list: yes they are
But they don't have AA!
-> looks again: yes they have!
But but not a masterpiece, using tricks, sacrificies , mumble , mumble ...

It's really amazing how people keep harping on a minority of Xbox360 games only showing a 'meager' x2.4 pixel increase instead of x3 while at the same time, defending Wii U not having a single (?) 720p PS360 port running in 1080p (x2.25).

At the end of the day the argument remains: PS3/360 launch titles compared to previous gen is really not the same as the Wii U situation.

 

[ArynCrinn]

I'm pretty sure Nintendo does care. No company gives stuff away, the consumer always pays in the end. And they don't want to make all consumers pay for features only 10% will actually ever use. "Feature bingo" isn't a game Nintendo plays.

I'd argue optical out and ethernet ports would be features more than 10% would actually use. I'd also strongly support the notion that like the Wii and GC, as well as the lack of any real solid information considering the everlasting online problems they have, that Nintendo will include the bare minimum then offer the dongle for a additional fee. I think we can speculate that if "online play" was a major company goal for this platform, we'd at least get steady and solid info and a ethernet port...

But for simplifications sake, lets just argue the ethernet port. Why not include it, and why instead charge cash money for a dongle? Would it drastically increase production costs, would it undermine a aesthetic or form factor change requiring a slight redesign (like internal HDD)? ...No, it wouldn't. They just don't want to, are not concerned about those would want a cleaner and stabler internet connection, bottom line. So if A) you don't own a wireless router, you must shell out more cash to enjoy Nintendo Network (between $40-$100 for anything really decent, or bogart the neighbors' connection), or B) pay Nintendo a additional fee (probably $10-$20) for a dongle. So Nintendo makes $10-$20, instead of spending a couple pennies in manufacturing for ethernet ports (even for a calculation of 10% of users, which will be in the millions total), seems like a pretty sweet deal.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I'd consider a simple set of connectors fair play.

 

[Goodlife]

I'd argue optical out and ethernet ports would be features more than 10% would actually use.

I'd argue 10% is completely overstating it, especially for optical out. 2-3% I'd say sounds about right.

 

[zoukka]

But for simplifications sake, lets just argue the ethernet port. Why not include it, and why instead charge cash money for a dongle? Would it drastically increase production costs, would it undermine a aesthetic or form factor change requiring a slight redesign (like internal HDD)? ...No, it wouldn't. They just don't want to, are not concerned about those would want a cleaner and stabler internet connection, bottom line. So if A) you don't own a wireless router, you must shell out more cash to enjoy Nintendo Network (between $40-$100 for anything really decent, or bogart the neighbors' connection), or B) pay Nintendo a additional fee (probably $10-$20) for a dongle. So Nintendo makes $10-$20, instead of spending a couple pennies in manufacturing for ethernet ports (even for a calculation of 10% of users, which will be in the millions total), seems like a pretty sweet deal.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I'd consider a simple set of connectors fair play.

They've been selling the idea of wireless dongles since the DS, so it's already quite the norm for Nintendo console owners. (whether this is greedy or not, I won't comment)

 

[SmokyDave]

I'd argue 10% is completely overstating it, especially for optical out. 2-3% I'd say sounds about right.

I'd say 60%.

What now?

 

[Shaheed79]

1 ) Risiving development costs

2) Increased production time and man power required

3) Higher risk investing into big budget games

4) Deminishing returns on technical power. Simply upping the res on a title from 720p native to 1080p, increasing from 30-60fps, adding AA/AF and other post processing effects, there goes 3x your power and you haven't even done that much.

5) Dominance of big name publishers like EA, Activision, Atari, etc. Getting new IPs off the ground is incredibly hard these days, and near impossible for a developer to obtain a publisher and still retain rights to their IPs.

6) The sheer volume of publishers and developers who in this generation closed up shop or went backrupt.

7) Loss leading stratergy employed by Sony and Microsoft last generation is unlikely to occur on such a large financial scale again. Didn't work out well for Sony at all with the PS3, and Microsoft have voiced their intentions to not invest so heavily a 3rd time around. So we're likely to see both of their next gen consoles are more tame and less beastly then what the PS3 and Xbox 360 were for their era.

8) Consumer spending and price point. Lower the better, and this is becoming a battle on its own to have your console affordable at day 1.

I agree 100% with this list, especially the points about the rising costs of game development. The business models used by most 3rd parties, this generation, just can't be maintained next generation without serious dire consequences.

Game Publishers just might be this naive, but somehow I think that most of them learned their lesson. Bleeding edge visuals inspired business models will always lead to massive losses and eventually bankruptcy. Even Crytek had to eventually acknowledge this.

 

[ikioi]

So basically Assassin's creed, Mass effect, Fallout, Forza, Gears of war, Arkham Asylum, God af war 3 and GT5 .... none of these franchises are block busters?

Mass Effect = low frame rate and as i said previously features selective AA

Fallout = No AA/selective AA depending on platform

Forza = low frame rate and hardly a graphically complex game. Limited cars on track, poor background scenery, poly count, textures, platform exclusive, list goes on.

Gears of War 2 = selective AA, low frame rate, platform exclusive big budget

Gears of War 3 = No AA, low frame rate, platform exclusive big budget

God of War 3 = MLAA (which doesn't make sense since it's an ATi rendering method) but either way FXAA and MLAA are rather limited techniques, exclusive big budget title, and although capable of 60fps it averages significantly less

GT5 = incredibly big budget, platform exclusive, lets not ignore the frame rate issues that plauged it, and like Forza it's graphcis are rather simplistic, and it too has selective and limited AA

It's also hilarious how you suddenly put 'AA' in there just so you can exclude games like Bioshock 2 and only use the PS3 version of GTAIV for your argument while the Xbox360 version actually runs at 720p with AA .

I mentioned AA as that's what someone above said was a defining feature of this generation.

As for Bioshock 2, according to beyond3d and everything i can find on the next. The Xbox 360 version does not feature AA, but rather filters. Also low frame rate to boot.

 

[Durante]

GT5 = incredibly big budget, platform exclusive, lets not ignore the frame rate issues that plauged it, and like Forza it's graphcis are rather simplistic, and it too has selective and limited AA

4xMSAA is now "selective and limited"? I don't have the energy to go through your entire list, but that one stood out to me.

 

[Shaheed79]

What do you consider to be "low framerate"? 30 fps and lower?

 

[ikioi]

4xMSAA is now "selective and limited"? I don't have the energy to go through your entire list, but that one stood out to me.

Link to 4xMSAA?

I've been told and read other wise, maybe i got fud

Edit:

Googled GT5 4XMSAA, i'll conceed that one happily

Though i still stand by my comments regarding it not being a complex 3D game. Many of the car models and textures are PS2 era bad, low poly and textured backgrounds, limited background objects, pathetic particle effects like water dirt etc, basic PS2 era AI, limited basic physics, FPS issues, and noticable bufffer and tearing issues. I would hardly say GT5 is a beatiful game, i actually believe its one of most over rated pieces titles of this this generation.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Mass Effect = low frame rate and as i said previously features selective AA

Fallout = No AA/selective AA depending on platform

Forza = low frame rate and hardly a graphically complex game. Limited cars on track, poor background scenery, poly count, textures, platform exclusive, list goes on.

Gears of War 2 = selective AA, low frame rate, platform exclusive big budget

Gears of War 3 = No AA, low frame rate, platform exclusive big budget

God of War 3 = MLAA (which doesn't make sense since it's an ATi rendering method) but either way FXAA and MLAA are rather limited techniques, exclusive big budget title, and although capable of 60fps it averages significantly less

GT5 = incredibly big budget, platform exclusive, lets not ignore the frame rate issues that plauged it, and like Forza it's graphcis are rather simplistic, and it too has selective and limited AA



I mentioned AA as that's what someone above said was a defining feature of this generation.

As for Bioshock 2, according to beyond3d and everything i can find on the next. The Xbox 360 version does not feature AA, but rather filters. Also low frame rate to boot.

Forza low frame rate? Are you sure about this? This list is ridiculous.
Who cares that GT5 is the most advanced and best looking racer available. "Rather simplistic", don't make me laugh.

 

[Durante]

Link to 4xMSAA?

I've been told and read other wise, maybe i got fud

The same one as before:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

 

[SmokyDave]

Forza low frame rate? Are you sure about this? This list is ridiculous.
Who cares that GT5 is the most advanced and best looking racer available. "Rather simplistic", don't make me laugh.

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of any of this. The games were a demonstrably larger leap, numbers aside. It's that simple.

Edit: And where the fuck does GT5 fit into any of this?!

 

[Margalis]

But for simplifications sake, lets just argue the ethernet port. Why not include it, and why instead charge cash money for a dongle?
...
B) pay Nintendo a additional fee (probably $10-$20) for a dongle. So Nintendo makes $10-$20, instead of spending a couple pennies in manufacturing for ethernet ports (even for a calculation of 10% of users, which will be in the millions total), seems like a pretty sweet deal.

The 360 has wired online and wireless costs a lot. The Wii/WiiU has wireless and wired is pretty cheap. (And you have to pay for XBL!)

Comparing these two it's hard for me to see how Nintendo is skimping on online features (at least at the hardware level) or trying to nickel and dime users, at least compared to the 360.

 

[ArynCrinn]

I'd argue 10% is completely overstating it, especially for optical out. 2-3% I'd say sounds about right.

Maybe, either estimate is just a estimate anyway. I really have no idea if even 1% would ever use either. But the bottom line is it's nice to have the option, and it's definitely better for serious competitive connectivity, and costs almost nothing to include.

It's just the nickel and dime mentality, when it makes no sense and doesn't need to happen, sucks ass.

They've been selling the idea of wireless dongles since the DS, so it's already quite the norm for Nintendo console owners. (whether this is greedy or not, I won't comment)

Solid point, but it makes much more sense for portable devices too. For a home console I'd say it's a different story. I mean for a console aimed for "all ages and everybody", then allowing issues like router settings or unstable signals to get in the way of enjoyment of Smash, kind of sucks.

I mostly use wireless myself admittedly, but like to have the option of ethernet for if everybody else in the house is shitting up the wireless on their laptops.

 

[Hoo-doo]

The 360 has wired online and wireless costs a lot. The Wii/WiiU has wireless and wired is pretty cheap. (And you have to pay for XBL!)

Comparing these two it's hard for me to see how Nintendo is skimping on online features (at least at the hardware level) or trying to nickel and dime users, at least compared to the 360.

Every new model has built in WiFi.

 

[wsippel]

I'd argue optical out and ethernet ports would be features more than 10% would actually use. I'd also strongly support the notion that like the Wii and GC, as well as the lack of any real solid information considering the everlasting online problems they have, that Nintendo will include the bare minimum then offer the dongle for a additional fee. I think we can speculate that if "online play" was a major company goal for this platform, we'd at least get steady and solid info and a ethernet port...

But for simplifications sake, lets just argue the ethernet port. Why not include it, and why instead charge cash money for a dongle? Would it drastically increase production costs, would it undermine a aesthetic or form factor change requiring a slight redesign (like internal HDD)? ...No, it wouldn't. They just don't want to, are not concerned about those would want a cleaner and stabler internet connection, bottom line. So if A) you don't own a wireless router, you must shell out more cash to enjoy Nintendo Network (between $40-$100 for anything really decent, or bogart the neighbors' connection), or B) pay Nintendo a additional fee (probably $10-$20) for a dongle. So Nintendo makes $10-$20, instead of spending a couple pennies in manufacturing for ethernet ports (even for a calculation of 10% of users, which will be in the millions total), seems like a pretty sweet deal.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I'd consider a simple set of connectors fair play.

Except the dongle isn't proprietary. If Nintendo were as greedy as some people think, they'd make sure only officially licensed dongles work, but you can get a cheap PC part for a few bucks and be done with it. Nintendo doesn't see a cent.

And I guess WLAN is a lot more commonplace than entertainment centers/ living rooms with a wired ethernet connection. Still, ethernet is probably the one feature they really should have included. But what most people seemingly fail to realize is that ethernet or optical or eSATA aren't just the ports for a couple of cents. They also require chips, increase the complexity of the PCB and, for optical, also require a considerable patent fee. It's not pennies, it's dollars.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Forza = low frame rate and hardly a graphically complex game. Limited cars on track, poor background scenery, poly count, textures, platform exclusive, list goes on.

60fps is "low" now?

God of War 3 = MLAA (which doesn't make sense since it's an ATi rendering method) but either way FXAA and MLAA are rather limited techniques, exclusive big budget title, and although capable of 60fps it averages significantly less

MLAA doesn't belong to AMD/ATI. It was actually first create by someone at Intel. Pandemic realized it would work well in software on the Cell's SPEs and added it to the Saboteur. From there a bunch of PS3 games started using it since it gave better image quality while saving GPU time over the 2x Quintex AA they'd been routinely using. It was later that AMD created a GPU-based version they added to their drivers.

GT5 = incredibly big budget, platform exclusive, lets not ignore the frame rate issues that plauged it, and like Forza it's graphics are rather simplistic, and it too has selective and limited AA

60fps at 720p with 4x MSAA or 1280x1080p with 2x MSAA. What are you even trying to prove here?

 

[ikioi]

Forza low frame rate? Are you sure about this? This list is ridiculous.

Oh wow it can do 60fps some times with 2-3 cars on the track with limited background objects and all the other fluff. It's a simple game and the second any real action starts, fps drop big time.

Who cares that GT5 is the most advanced and best looking racer available. "Rather simplistic", don't make me laugh.

GT5 is a piece of crap. Out of the two i'll take Forza thanks.

MLAA doesn't belong to AMD/ATI. It was actually first create by someone at Intel.

AFAIK Nvidia's take on it is FXAA, MLAA was ATi's branding. But thats ok thanks for clearing it up, MLAA is still not pipped AA though. It's almost as low end as AA can go.

60fps at 720p with 4x MSAA or 1280x1080p with 2x MSAA. What are you even trying to prove here?

Seriously GT5 cannot be considered a graphically demanding game, far from it.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Oh wow it can do 60fps some times with 2-3 cars on the track with limited background objects and all the other fluff. It's a simple game and the second any real action starts, fps drop big time.



GT5 is a piece of crap. Out of the two i'll take Forza thanks.

Someone get this joker out of here, lol.

 

[SmokyDave]

Seriously GT5 cannot be considered a graphically demanding game, far from it.

Here you go, chap.

 

[ikioi]

I've elaborated on why i don't rate GT5, you wont challenge or debate it and instead troll. I'll leave the discussion at that.

 

[Backfoggen]

720p with AA running at 60 fps is terrible compared to the 4k 120 fps Wii U games are obviously going to run at.

 

[Hoo-doo]

I've elaborated on why i don't rate GT5, you wont challenge or debate it and instead troll. I'll leave the discussion at that.

I'm no fanboy of either game. I just recognize pure unadulterated bullshit when I see it.
You think holding these games to some ridiculous and completely imaginary standard wins you the argument? Go right ahead.

 

[ArynCrinn]

The 360 has wired online and wireless costs a lot. The Wii/WiiU has wireless and wired is pretty cheap. (And you have to pay for XBL!)

Comparing these two it's hard for me to see how Nintendo is skimping on online features (at least at the hardware level) or trying to nickel and dime users, at least compared to the 360.

Yeah, don't even get me started on the $90 wireless dongle for Xenon-Jasper model 360's, unbelievable. But not really surprising for Microsoft...

Except the dongle isn't proprietary. If Nintendo were as greedy as some people think, they'd make sure only officially licensed dongles work, but you can get a cheap PC part for a few bucks and be done with it. Nintendo doesn't see a cent.

And I guess WLAN is a lot more commonplace than entertainment centers/ living rooms with a wired ethernet connection. Still, ethernet is probably the one feature they really should have included. But what most people seemingly fail to realize is that ethernet or optical or eSATA aren't just the ports for a couple of cents. They also require chips, increase the complexity of the PCB and, for optical, also require a considerable patent fee. It's not pennies, it's dollars.

Okay, fair enough, dollars. But my argument was never that Nintendo was greedy, my argument fundamentally is that they are cheap to a fault. Reliability aside, they offer totally barebones systems, instead of offering systems that you don't need to go out and buy this or that additive, for basic functions. If it's the cost of dollars, let's say $10 per unit, and they still charged $300 for the basic package I don't think they'd be bleeding financially from that loss.

But anyway, I would just rather pay a additional cost for a total package than need to hike through Wal Mart or Amazon for every little piece of tech they choose to cut costs on. Maybe some people are okay with that, but I'd rather not bother.

 

[ikioi]

I'm no fanboy of either game. I just recognize pure unadulterated bullshit when I see it.
You think holding these games to some ridiculous and completely imaginary standard wins you the argument? Go right ahead.

Many of GT5s car models are incredibly low poly and textures. It has less background objects then the GT4 on PS2. The physics and AI are laughable. Particle effects like dirt and water again look like throw backs to the PS2 era. It has had significant frame rate issues to the point poly fon acknowledged them and apologised. Then there's tearing. clipping, and other related rendering issues.

It was also one of the most expensive games this generation, spent years in development, and came from a first party developer.

If the results from that game impress you, so be it. For me, i'm not impressed. Forza over all i rate technically better.

 

[Kenka]

Someone get this joker out of here, lol.

We probably can't. This is a pointless thread in which all speculation regarding Wii U pours in. It's a needed dust bin. It's better to not pay attention.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I see this thread has gone even more crazy since last time i was in here .
Saying GT5 is not graphically demanding game is such crazy talk .

Many of GT5s car models are incredibly low poly and textures. It has less background objects then the GT4 on PS2. The physics and AI are laughable. Particle effects like dirt and water again look like throw backs to the PS2 era. It has had significant frame rate issues to the point poly fon acknowledged them and apologised. Then there's tearing. clipping, and other related rendering issues.

It was also one of the most expensive games this generation, spent years in development, and came from a first party developer.

If the results from that game impress you, so be it. For me, i'm not impressed. Forza over all i rate technically better.

You have to be talking about the cars that are from GT4 ?
In now way are the new cars that get done for GT5 low poly .
I won't even bother with the rest of your post .

 

[TheD]

God of War 3 = MLAA (which doesn't make sense since it's an ATi rendering method)

Shows how much you know!

MLAA was invented by Intel!

Sony improved it a bit and used it in some games, only months later did AMD make a version!

 

[DCharlie]

For me, i'm not impressed.

let's cut to the chase, seeing as you've named pretty much every game that doesn't impress you let us know what does impress you then.

and let us know why.

 

[ikioi]

I won't even bother with the rest of your post .

Well if you have no valid counter point to debate or add you'd strugle too.

As for MLAA, devleoped by Intel, labeled FXAA by Nvidia, and MLAA by ATi. That is where my confusion stemmed from. I assume it's also processed by the Cell CPU rather then the Nvidia GPU on the PS3?

Graphically impressive console games, i'd honestly have to think. I certainly admired Uncharted 2, but that's mostly for its artistic direction and execution. I don't think there is a console game from this gen that really impresses me. But there's certainly ames i believe are very much over hyped and rated and GT5 is right up there at the top. What i enjoy most about console games are not their graphics but rather game play and their artistic style. I for example quite like Zelda Skyward Sword, sans the frequently annoying motion controls i love the artistic style. But last generation i'd point to games like Rouge Squadron 2, Resident Evil 4, Ninja Gaiden on Xbox, Final Fantasy 12 on PS2, as stand out graphical games.


I game primarily on my PC, i7 3930k and dual 580GTXs in SLI. I've always been a PC gamers so for the most part i've been playing games at graphic details well beyond the Xbox 360 and PS3 for many many years.

 

[SmokyDave]

let's cut to the chase, seeing as you've named pretty much every game that doesn't impress you let us know what does impress you then.

and let us know why.

I see the words 'Mario Galaxy' and 'Art Direction' in your future.

 

[DCharlie]

I see the words 'Mario Galaxy' and 'Art Direction' in your future.

+10 for "running under dolphin". Wollan duck pls.

 

[M°°nblade]

let's cut to the chase, seeing as you've named pretty much every game that doesn't impress you let us know what does impress you then.

and let us know why.

As much as he narrows his current-gen goalposts to complex native 720p block buster games with high framerate and nonselective AA, I'm dying to see how much he widens them again to make sure the Wii U games can be called a next-gen leap compared to current gen offerings.

 

[NBtoaster]

I see the words 'Mario Galaxy' and 'Art Direction' in your future.

What i enjoy most about console games are not their graphics but rather game play and their artistic style. I for example quite like Zelda Skyward Sword

Partial credit.

 

[ikioi]

You'll be disapointed.

I'm not expecting much above this generation from the Wii U. More memory, modern gpu architecture, and the increase EDRAM pool should provide developers some more freedom. But over all i'd say Wii U games are going to heavily resemble jazzed up versions of what we've seen already on the PS3 and Xbox 360. Moderately higher texture resolutions, 720p + 60fps + AA/AF standard for games that don't make heavy use of the controller screen, and better effects like lighting, water, and particle. I'd say it'd be like Xbox 360 and PS3 = PC game on medium DX9, with Wii U game on high DX11. Over all the game will look a little better, but nothing mind blowing.

My argument was never that the Wii U is some how going to be this powerful beast or blow me away. I doubt even the next Xbox or Playstation will come anywhere close to my current desktop PC.

The argument was that i don't really consider the Xbox 360 or PS3 'HD'. Neither one is able to consistantly run complex 3D games at even 720p, 60fps, with basic levels of full screen AA and AF. Games that people hail as some technical like GT5 for example. I see GT5 as a title that despite 50-100 million dollars in investment, years in development, first party support, and hundreds if not more staff, cannot even get a game running without significant compromise and short cuts at 720p.

 

[Sid]

You'll be disapointed.

I'm not expecting much above this generation from the Wii U. More memory, modern gpu architecture, and the increase EDRAM pool should provide developers some more freedom. But over all i'd say Wii U games are going to heavily resemble jazzed up versions of what we've seen already on the PS3 and Xbox 360.

Modern architecture?i don't think it'll have a southern islands gpu.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Well if you have no valid counter point to debate or add so be it.

As for MLAA, devleoped by Intel, labeled FXAA by Nvidia, and MLAA by ATi. That is where my confusion stemed from. I assume it's also processed by the Cell CPU rather then the Nvidia GPU on the PS3?

Graphically impressive console games, i'd honestly have to think. I certainly admired Uncharted 2, but that's mostly for its artistic direction and execution. I don't think there is a console game that impresses me, but more so there's certainly games i believe are very much over hyped and rated and GT5 is right up there.


I game primarily on my PC, i7 3930k and dual 580GTXs in SLI. I've always been a PC gamers so for the most part i've been playing games at graphic details well beyond the Xbox 360 and PS3 for many many years.

You do know that games can be judge on there technical merits even if they are not on a powerful PC .
In fact i find PC game less impressive since they have so much power and hardly look beyond console games.
Take GT5 lighting for eg which is some of best in any game .

Any way this is a Wii U topic i expect the system will have better looking game than PS3\Xbox360 in time .
The question going to be how well are the ports of PS4\720 games going to be and that depends on how powerful they are .

 

[mocoworm]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-16-wii-u-pro-controller-lasts-up-to-80-hours-retailers-boast

Wii U Pro Controller lasts up to 80 hours, retailers boast - But not compatible with Wii games.

"Nintendo's Wii U Pro Controller (the one that looks like an Xbox 360 pad) has a battery life that lasts up to 80 hours.

That's according to the official product description on Amazon and Gamestop (as noted by Nintendo Life).

In comparison, the Xbox 360 "Play & Charge" kit offers 25-30 hours of charge. The touch-screen Wii U GamePad offers just five hours.

But the Pro Controller does not work with Wii games played on Wii U, the listing added. For these titles you'll need to keep your old Wii Classic Controller Pro handy."

 

[TheD]

Well if you have no valid counter point to debate or add you'd strugle too.
m
As for MLAA, devleoped by Intel, labeled FXAA by Nvidia, and MLAA by ATi. That is where my confusion stemmed from.

STOP!

FXAA is not related to MLAA!


I am also a mainly PC gamer and thus I also know what games running on much more power systems than the 360 and PS3 look like......
It does not look like what we are getting out of the Wii U.

 

[blu]

Yes, absolutely. See my posts in the Orbis and Durango threads. Wii U just seems to be the most disappointing.

Me personally, I don't see a reason to be disappointed - the actual rendering quality I, for one, am looking for, is so much out of reach of all next gen machines that it makes no sense to me to be disappointed by the fact that one of the machines will be a bit further from reaching that quality. I can run path tracers all I want on my PCs, but that does not somehow affect my satisfaction from playing a good console game. The one issue that could really affect me is the viability of the platform for multipalt efforts (where I think WiiU could have a memory issue first and foremost), but if I decided I truly wanted a game not found on the platforms I own, I just go out an buy the darn hw. And even if the game object to my desires did not live to my expectations, the platform might still have what to offer. For me this gen it was GT5 - left me rather disappointed, but I don't regret getting the ps3 one bit - there were a sufficient number of worthy games for me on it.

Yes. I was off by 0.6, in one single instance. Thank you for correcting me. The main point the argument was about (that the step from the PS2 generation to PS360 was clearly more significant than the one from the latter to Wii U) is unaffected by that though.

Nothing personal, but since I suspect you're an engineer, I do take offense in your way of computing your error: .6 out of 2.4 is 25% error ;p

On a facetious sidenote, why is last gen 'the ps2 generation' and not 'the xbox generation', when in the context of 360? ; )

 

[ikioi]

In fact i find PC game less impressive since they have so much power and hardly look beyond console games.

Hey i agree.

When you think that many games still don't make use of DX11 or OpenGL4, lack of 64bit support, pathetic multi core optimisation if any at all, no hyperthreading or SMT support. I don't in anyway think PC game developers harness or utelize much of a modern high end gaming PC's capabilities. But at least i can toy with them

Take GT5 lighting for eg which is some of best in any game.

Sorry but i disagree, and i do own the game. There are imho games on the PS3 with far more immersive lighting then that in GT5.

STOP!

FXAA is not related to MLAA!

FXAA was Nvidia's response to ATi's MLAA

 

[Brad Grenz]

As much as he narrows his current-gen goalposts to complex native 720p block buster games with high framerate and nonselective AA, I'm dying to see how much he widens them again to make sure the Wii U games can be called a next-gen leap compared to current gen offerings.

Don't forget they can't be big budget, either!

 

[DCharlie]

with Wii U game on high DX11

you want to double check that? or are you going to stand by that?

any chance of that list of games you find technically proficient etc?
ah, ignore i can see you list :

I for example quite like Zelda Skyward Sword, sans the frequently annoying motion controls i love the artistic style. But last generation i'd point to games like Rouge Squadron 2, Resident Evil 4, Ninja Gaiden on Xbox, Final Fantasy 12 on PS2, as stand out graphical games.

ok.

 

[magawolaz]

Many of GT5s car models are incredibly low poly and textures. It has less background objects then the GT4 on PS2. The physics and AI are laughable. Particle effects like dirt and water again look like throw backs to the PS2 era. It has had significant frame rate issues to the point poly fon acknowledged them and apologised. Then there's tearing. clipping, and other related rendering issues.

It was also one of the most expensive games this generation, spent years in development, and came from a first party developer.

If the results from that game impress you, so be it. For me, i'm not impressed. Forza over all i rate technically better.

lol, now you must be trolling.

GT5 can handle 16 cars with 100,000+ polygons on incredibly detailed tracks with dynamic weather, day/night cycle, animated cars, animated driver, animated crowd, volumetric smoke, sparks, dirt, at 1080p and 60fps (not locked, I'll give you that) and with one of the best lightning ever seen in racing games videogames.
IA, physics and force feedback are top notch.
When you look at the complete package, you can't find any game that comes close to GT5 (apart from modded pc racing sims). Live with it.

 

[ikioi]

you want to double check that? or are you going to stand by that?

I'll clarify

Wii U = DirectX 9 game on high with a few DX10/11 features added on
Xbox 360/PS3 = DirectX 9 game on medium
PS4/Durango = Full DirectX 11/OpenGL 4.1 game on high

That make sense?

 

[Relix]

I'll clarify

Wii U = DirectX 9 game on high with a few DX10/11 features added on
Xbox 360/PS3 = DirectX 9 game on medium
PS4/Durango = Full DirectX 11/OpenGL 4.1 game on high

That make sense?

I don't think next gen consoles will match what we have for high end GPUs at the moment. Heat and power is too muchh

 

[TheD]

FXAA was Nvidia's response to ATi's MLAA

*Response to AMDs implementation of MLAA, you thought that AMD invented it.

 

[ikioi]

They still should be fully compliant with OpenGL 4.1 and DirectX 11.1 feature sets though.

I seem memory as the Wii U's biggest limiation though. memory was one of the biggest issues developers had to work around this gen with the Xbox 360 and PS3. I would have liked Nintendo to have gone for 2GB all around usable for games. But perhaps the architecture of the Wii U negates the need for such a large pool of ram. The edram will no doubt help, but i wonder how useful 32 meg will be.

I've resided myself to the fact that even my aging 2+ year old 580GTXs will likely exceed the capabilities of the PS4 and Durango systems.