Canis lupus
Member
We won't neither see Agni's Philosophy graphics in the foreseeable future. Avatar graphics? Wow at people even mentionning it.
Rumor: Wii U final specs
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
We won't neither see Agni's Philosophy graphics in the foreseeable future. Avatar graphics? Wow at people even mentionning it.
This way of thinking would work if you didn't have any point of comparison. Luckily, we have MS and Sony that push offerings that rival Nintendo's, and thus, extend our experience of what we perceive as good. Once Nintendo is not as good, it has to up its game.
Going by your reasoning, you assume Nintendo will never have to think of what competitors bring to the market to compete for your $$$.
Well, that all depended entirely on who you talked to at the time, much like it does now.
Exactly.
PS3/360 launch titles compared to previous gen is really not the same as the Wii U situation. Even the worst launch titles were rendering at 3x the resolution of previous gen, and quite a few were even adding AA on top of that. This increase in fidelity alone, irrespective of any other graphical improvements, is already more than can be said for any Wii U port so far.
Yes. There's nothing impossible in that demo. It's already running in realtime on "normal" (not multi-GPU) hardware.
GhostTrick
Banned
Not for the first games... but 2 years after, I also think Agni's Philosophy will be possible.
Of course, it wont be that "cinematic", but about 3D models, effects etc... I think, too, it will be achievable.
Yeah. As I said, IQ will probably suffer on consoles, but maybe they'll make a PC version. And that should look even better than the trailer (which had quite a few IQ issues actually!).
Durante said:
Xbox and Gamecube = 480p
Xbox 360 = 720p
I don't see 3x the resolution, unless you mean textures. And even then i'd say that's wrong, as shitty low res textures even now are still apparent.
And the previous generation to that didn't have games with AA? You'll find they did.
Industry changes, its not the same as it was 7 years ago a lot has changed.
GhostTrick
Banned
Halo 3 ran at 640.
640 x 480 = 307'200 pixels
1280 x 720 = 921'600 pixels.
That's exactly 3 x more.
But back to your argument: what you imply is that we cannot expect a larger generational leap than what we are getting due to how the industry evolved (pressure on budget developments I guess, diminishing returns, heat problems with GPUs, and so on). That's all fine but then why didn't Nintendo wait one more year to take advantage of all the recent shrinking/efficiency advances? You see, we have reasons to feel kinda meh.
Canis lupus
Member
I thought people were expecting on the WiiU hardware. Not sure on the PS4/720. FFXIII looked awesome back in 2006, but in launch 2010 it was just okay. In the same month we god GoW3.
Basic math:
(1280*720)/(640*480) = 3
As far as I am aware, less than 0.05% of the games released during the PS2 generation had AA. Do you really want to base your argument on that?
I thought it was in general. I'm certainly not expecting Agni's Philosophy on Wii U.
GhostTrick
Banned
SpoonyBard
Banned
edit: slow
Voices are just voices and don't necessarily contain truth.
Even the poorest of the poorest launch efforts showed a 3x jump in a pixel rendering from going HD. That's, objectively, a noticeable leap.
And that's why Wii U launch games should never, ever be compared to Xbox360 launch games.
I see what you did there ;-)
If WiiU is "on par" with PS3/360 then Xbox 1 is "on par" with the Dreamcast. WiiU is definitely a more powerful system than those two platforms. I believe the WiiU's superior abilities will be easily proven when developers are able to port over their PS4/720 games that cannot be done on PS3 or 360 due to memory constraints and feature limitations.
You can judge the WiiU's overall power by its launch line-up all you want though. I'm definitely not going to stop you. When the time comes, we will see a noticeable difference over what current gen platforms can display visually.
Just don't expect the difference in Sony and MS's next-gen platforms to be anything like the leap we acquired from the PS2 to the PS3. The biggest visual difference, besides the new features available with OpGL4+ and DX11, is going to be that the new consoles will finally be able to do a lot of the things, in real time, that the PS3/360 had to constantly "fake" in order to achieve a playable framerate; one of the most important being, no more "fake HD" upscaled to 720p.
The truth is that the two platforms, which we dubbed the "HD twins", were never truly capable of running complex games in native HD resolutions. Constant corners had to be cut in order to render in 720p at a reasonable framerate, especially for more complex games that displayed a lot of real time physics, and large realistic environments.
Most of the 3rd parties console development tools are built around taking the most advantage of very incapable hardware. It's going to take time for them to design console development tools around hardware that is finally capable of properly producing HD resolutions, without having to make tremendous visual sacrifices.
The games will look better for sure, but not anywhere near "Avatar" better. The PC version of Watch Dogs is a great example of what to expect, on average, from next-gen. I am certain that the WiiU would be able to run Watch Dogs closer to the PC builds than the PS3/360 builds.
Lastly, retail HD game development budgets are already out of control, requiring sales of 2-4 million copies just to break even. In response to this, I expect publishers to play next-gen much wiser than they did this generation. The best selling non-Nintendo game series ran between 544p and 608p at 60fps, and was not even close to being one of the best looking games of the generation. I believe that sent a message to publishers as to what gamers care more about.
I'm just saying, we probably need to start comparing Nintendo to competition the way we compare Apple to competition. In the gaming space, at least for the last two generations, Nintendo hasn't had to think of what competitors brought to the market, and got richer doing so. What makes you think they'll change that now, if they can theoretically position themselves into the same type of niche in the gaming space (a VERY profitable niche btw) just like Apple does in the PC space? From both a software and hardware perspective, because that's exactly what is happening.
Lots of reasons they moved now.
- Wii is dead. No way could they keep that thing generating enough profit to keep everyone happy for another year.
- They'd have competition right next to them and SONY/MS would still be more powerful.
- Apple is moving into the TV space soon. This trumps them for a short while.
- SmartGlass is not out yet. Nintendo still has an innovative control scheme and USP.
- The sooner the move, the sooner they can leapfrog next gen again if they need to.
I just think the timing's right. Initially I thought they should have gone HD a year ago but if they had have, their tech would look even worse compared to next gen SONY/MS.
GhostTrick
Banned
Halo 3 wasn't a launch title, and the others are still more than double the pixels, and with AA, and PGR3 blew away all the racing games of the previous gen.
I expect Avatar in real time in less than 20 years myself.
As above someone beat my to posting
Recent Call of Duty titles = 600p
Halo 3 = 640p.
So many Xbox 360 and PS3 games rely on upscaling, true resolutions of most complex 3D games on both systems are not 720p.
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.
Nintendo appear to have invested significant resources and engineering into the MCM and the technology in the Wii U. Nintendo may not have focused on technical power, but imho it'd be completely ignorant to say they've done anothre Wii and released archaic and simple tech again.
SpoonyBard
Banned
If 720p will become standard for Wii U games, then will PS4/720 games also use that resolution? 1080p has 2.25 times as many pixels, and requires quite a lot higher fill rate from GPU + more memory, so maybe the devs prefer to keep 720p as standard, and only use 1080p for simpler games.
Yes. All the games that were not at least 3x the image quality instead used significantly more modern rendering techniques. I don't know why this is even a contested point. Well, I do know, but it's not a rational reason.
Wrong.
The arguably most complex 3D games of this gen are actually mostly 720p (Uncharted 2/3, God of War 3/A, Gears of War 3, RDR, Halo 4), or extremely close (BF3). All of these games except Gears 3 have AA too.
Ok, so the very worst example you could find is just 2.4 times the resolution. And lets also pretend that its fidelity other than resolution is only on the PS2 level. Now, is the worst Wii U launch title you can find 2.4 times the resolution of the PS360 version?
LOL.
Most of the 720p games on those lists are not complex or block busters, and those that are 720 most of them dont even have AA.
But hey, feel free to continue to believe the Xbox 360 and PS3 just pump out complex games with AA @ 720. Better go tell COD, GTA, Halo, Bioshock, and plethora of other big name games they're doing it wrong.
I own a 360 myself and to be fair, few to none games had AA (mostly sport and racing titles if any) on the launch line-up and some of the games were even rendering at a lower resolution than 720p. I think it was the 360 video scaling chip or the TVs internal scaling hardware that were perhaps sometimes hidding all that.
I found this interesting rendering resolution list over at beyond3d --> http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1113344&postcount=3
Guess the guys over there really know what they talk about.
NSMBWU has more than double the pixels of Halo 3.
Halo 3: 30 fps, 640
Mario: 60 fps, 720, 480 second screen.
Now my math isn't the best but I'm pretty sure 60 is already double 30.
Ruh roh! Facts!
What is a "complex" game?
I don't believe that at all. In fact, I do believe that image quality on PS360 is mostly unacceptable.
But you just added the "with AA" to your argument right now, when your claim about 720p was soundly rebuffed. Also known as goalpost moving.
Yes, I posted that link above.
Selecting games =/= reflect of the general truth. And it's rude to think other poster are idiots.
You don't seem to realize that the concerns of the posters you talk to are not solely linked to technical aspects of the Wii U, do you. Defending the console by downplaying other offerings of the market, relativising their impact on the industry and fabricating assertions only leads you to play in your backyard and not have a constructive discussion with other members.
After all, we are all here to learn from one another, right. I like Nintendo just as much as the next guy but they are leaving me hanging on crucial matters and that's why I'd rather voice my discontentment to force them to up their game, rather than having to pass on Mario because it comes on a half-assed platform.
I honestly don't see how anyone that owned an Xbox (1) and then bought a 360 and HDTV at launch can argue. The difference was definitely more noticeable and you didn't need to count exact numbers to see it.
Speaking of numbers, are we right to take it for granted that all Xbox 1 titles rendered at 640x480?
Cherrypicking a minority of current gen games running in subHD resolution which only show a 2x pixel increase doesn't suddenly make the Wii U launch games which show zero pixel increase comparable.
Are you expressing disappointment in all of the next gen platforms? Because I hope that you are not suggesting we will see "3x the resolution" coming from PS4 and 720. If so, you will be sorely disappointed. We will still be seeing 720p games on those platforms next gen. Count on it. Less visually complex games will be 1080p.
There will be sacrifices made to games next gen, just like there were sacrifices made to games this generation. We won't be seeing games like GTAVI running at 1080p at 60fps with tesselation and 4xMSAA. It just won't be happening.
You seem confused.
You said something that was false. I'm not arguing that the WiiU is three 360s duct-taped together - I'm just pointing out that you are fibbing.
Whether or not the WiiU is a bigger or lesser jump than the jump from Xbox to 360 is something I could not care less about. It's something you apparently care a lot about, even though you don't seem to actually know what the jump from Xbox to 360 was.
Sorry to be rude but if you are making a technical argument about rendering resolution what the real resolution of launch games were is kind of important, and if you are concerned with "goalpost moving" your own posts are prime offenders. So yeah.
General truth is most Xbox 360 and PS3 games that run natively @ 720p with AA were simple graphically and technically compared to those that run sub 720p. Draw distances, texture resolutions, poly counts, procesing effects, low frame rates, reality is neither of the HD twins really was HD yet alone true HD.
Those games that weren't simple tended to be from studios with massive budgets and direct support.
M°°nblade;43255051 said:
I'm not cherry picking at all, rather listing some of the popular and big name titles of this generation.
Halo 3, GTA 3, CoD 4/5/6, Bioshock, so many of the 'big' games are not even 720p. And out of the big name games which were 720p with AA such as Uncharted 2, it still had a low frame rate and came from a first party developer. Naughty Dog also had to deploy quite a number of tehcniques and tricks to obtain that res and image quality, sacrificing other attributes as a result. Then there's games like Mass Effect which were native 720p, but with out AA or very limited AA and frame rate, and i wouldn't say Mass Effect was a graphical master peice either.
There will be 720p games on PS4/xbox3, but they won't look like PS3/360 games.
Yes, absolutely. See my posts in the Orbis and Durango threads. Wii U just seems to be the most disappointing.
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.
Here's a nugget of my thinking then. I don't judge or discount a platform as "half-assed" based on the visual or hardware potential of the chipset (I already own two beast gaming rigs). I judge it on the quality of the games, reliability of the machine, price-to-performance ratio, and finally games to come and online community integration. A lot of these details we don't know yet, but I'd never discount a machine based on "low performance output" compared to my personal subjective expectations, the value of the platform is more than that.
Now, I'll bash Nintendo until the end of time for not including a Ethernet port, optical out, internal/SATA/eSATA HDD option, and whatever else they decide to save literally pennies on manufacturing at the cost of between $10-$200 (depending on component) the customer is expected to shell out because Nintendo just doesn't care. But like I said, the Apple mentality.
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?
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 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.
Margalis, when I read you, this pops in my mind:
I didn't catch your edit, but "Lol, moving these goalposts!" was not funny, especially, since Durante did acknowledge twice that he made a slight calculation mistake. I am not mad at you but you are rather annoying, sorry if I use these words.
Damn, the Wii U specs discussion. I don't feel smart when I post here but I keep coming back. Why, god.
If Nintendo try just for a second make a marketing about Wii U power, in the next day Sony/Ms will make a marketing about how Ps4/XBOX3 is infinity times more powerful than Wii U and Nintendo can finish with a problem like DreamCast has.
SNES and N64. The second, with its Terminator 2 graphics and other bull talking.
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 ever use. "Feature bingo" isn't a game Nintendo plays.