Edit: Man this thread moves fast.
The original Xbox version of Kameo might be a better point for comparision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZjOYca7lMM
Even at this incomplete state it shows the 360 version basically reused the same assets (models, textures, environments) for the most part, with the major improvements being to lighting and the resolution bump. Still very much comparable though.
Looking at the same scene, the textures aren't the same on the floor, the textures are a higher resolution, shaders are much improved, lighting is improved, the number of models being displayed on the screen is insane compared to the emptiness we see on the xbox version.
The leap is very very apparent and it's comparable in the way that you can tell it's the same game, but certainly not in graphics when taken as a whole.
It hasn't been specified if the optical drive can read dual layer BD yet, but it can read dual layer DVD (it has to for 100% Wii compatibility). The only thing confirmed is game software uses 25GB discs for now.
It's worth noting that in 2006 Nintendo said they would be releasing a "deluxe" Wii capable of playing DVD movies in the future and they even went so far as to license the proper codecs and software for that. No one knows what really happened there, but it's presumed the success of the system (to the degree they couldn't satisfy demand for a couple years in) probably killed the need to bother in Nintendo's eyes. I'm sure they also don't see much value in disc movie playing for Wii U, especially as (unlike MS/Sony) it's a business they don't draw any real revenue from.
I think if we do ever see a DVD/BRD movie playing variant it'll come from a hardware partner like Panasonic, Sharp or NEC. Of course I also sort of figured we'd see that for Wii and it never materialized.
Yeah, I remember all that with the Wii too and I agree with you that they probably dropped the idea since it was an unnecessary cost when their system was selling so great anyways.
If you compare individual features, those games have already been surpassed.
During my Wii U trip, I also played some PS3 games to get some fair comparisons. I noticed the textures in Uncharted 3 are of lower quality then the ones found in Nintendo Land. The lighting it used was also dated. Very DX9 worthy whereas I would rate the lighting in Nintendoland easily on par with Directx 11 class GPU's.
The only thing Wii U games have yet to make a big leap in is polygons (although Nano Assault comes close to breaking that barrier).
You're making some obvious mistakes with your assessment (more like assumption) here.
I think Microsoft at least knows that it's only a matter of time until Apple releases some kind of set top box that does the same thing to the living room environment. If they do, a lot of people won't want to buy single-purpose set top boxes anymore, and that includes game consoles. Microsoft, and maybe Sony as well, are trying to get there first.
TBH I think both MS and Sony recognize Apple and Google as a threat by now.
PGR3: 600p / 30 fps (18,432,000 pixels/sec)
NSMBU/Nintendo Land: 720p / 60 fps (55,296,000 pixels/sec) + 480p / 60 fps (24,595,200 pixels/sec)
Honest question, is there anything in Nintendo land that's as demanding as PGR3? Everything I've seen of Nintendo land has been more top down and simpler in design.
Also, we're comparing a game that had maybe a couple months with finished hardware, when multi-thread/core and DX9 programming were either non-existent or in it's infancy. Not really the best comparison to make.
GI can be aided by the GPU, but unless you were on the dev team, or read papers/slides published by said team, there's no way you would know just by looking at it.
So what is the average texture resolution(s) of a current gen game and what is the texture resolution in Nintendo Land?
Modeling/processing over framerate/IQ. To each their own, but I'll always choose the latter in a racer if given the option. 600p/30fps just didn't scream "next gen" in 2005 imo, especially with a 10x power increase such sacrifices should've been unnecessary. I guess it's more a matter of developer priorities and architecture familiarity, much like with every hardware launch.
That fits for the 360 or ps3, but not for the Wii-U.
My point was PGR3 had to make serious concessions to reach it's level of visual output in other areas (geometry, lighting, post processing). RR6 (720p/60fps) is a good counter example to it, a game with true "next gen" resolution and acceptable genre framerate but generally got bagged on for simpler visuals. We never got the "whole package" at launch really it seemed.
As far as from-the-end-of-last-gen racers though:
Rallisport Challenge 2: 640p / 60 fps (24,595,200 pixels/sec)
CoD2, Kameo, and Condemned should count as the whole package IMO. Each game looked great, played great, and demonstrated a noticeable improvement over last gen tech.
by this same logic you expect developers to get the PS4 and Xbox Loop to perform at their best at launch then?
He does have a point. Multi-core development was new, DX9 was new, both systems were using some bleeding edge tech. However with next gen, even DX11 has been around for a couple years and DX10 is especially well known in it's feature-set by the developers. Developers will be able to hit the ground running a lot better with next gen hardware than they did with the PS360. I think we'll see a nice curve with the PS4/720 since DX11-specific development is just now ramping up, while I have always said we'll see less progression out of the Wii-U due to there being an overall smaller pool of resources to dive into.
