.
Yeah, it's finally time for some people to deal with it.
The Wii U is a little bit "stronger" than PS360.
That's it!
Hey beats denying that Nintendo decided to go cheap on the hardware again (back in E3 2011, the hard was the shit!).
PGR3 was sub HD and 30 fps. Kameo was an Xbox port, and looking at the recently leaked media of the near complete original, the 360 version was barely upgraded (mostly the lighting).PGR3 and Kameo was really impressive at launch.
I never played Nintendo consoles for power. That's for my PC and competing consoles to handle. Nintendo used to have games that were just fun. But since the Gamecube and DS, nothing they have released has enticed me. And so far, neither has the Wii U.
What did Gamecube have that interested you that Wii didn't? I personally thought Wii was stronger than Gamecube when it comes to first party games.
There is absolutely no reason why someone couldn't or shouldn't have this opinion.I love that today's definition of "go cheap" is to make money. Just because Sony and Microsoft use this loss leading philosophy does not mean it is "cheap" that Nintendo does not.
It's a console that plays Nintendo's games in HD.
Coild not give a fuck if its that powerful or not.
It's Nintendo games. In HD.
It's a console that plays Nintendo's games in HD.
Coild not give a fuck if its that powerful or not.
It's Nintendo games. In HD.
PGR3 was sub HD and 30 fps.
Kameo was an Xbox port, and looking at the recently leaked media of the near complete original, the 360 version was barely upgraded (mostly the lighting).
DOA4 looked like DOAU in stills, PD0 had wallguy. People called it Xbox 1.5 for a reason.
And all could be played with a regular controller.
Well yeah, just not by much.
A subHD, 30fps racer isn't what I'd have considered impressively "next gen" in 2005. Not after seeing Xbox 1 racers like Rallisport Challenge 2. And I didn't, I went for RR6 instead. Not insanely good looking, but it also didn't sport a subpar resolution and framerate.Being sub HD and 30 fps just proves his/her point even more. Seeing how it was still a huge step up visually from the previous gen.
I played it too, at launch. I thought it was nice looking at the time, but it's pretty amazing in retrospect just how little it actually progressed over the Xbox 1 version. It even recycles the same models and environments as is.For people looking at footage, maybe it was barely upgraded, but to the people who had an hd tv and actually played it at launch, there was clearly more going on besides the lighting.
DOA4 was held back by the artstyle, PD0 held back by being another super fast Xbox upport (nice lighting/mapping though), but the end result was still the same. My 360 didn't give a game that felt "next gen" until Oblivion the following spring.Your actually using this as an argument? Yeah if you cherry picked screen shots and looked at freeze framed stills, it looked like Xbox 1.5. But if you played the games in motion, it clearly wasn't.
now I see the problem
It's never been a question of whether it's more powerful
It's never been a question of whether it's more powerful, but rather how much more powerful.
That launch games are on par with PS3/360 equivalents was never an argument against that Wii U games may look better in future - it's an argument against the idea that the leap is particularly sizable.
Past generational transitions have been able to provide a significant visible improvement over prior generations at launch due the hardware being a significant technological upgrade.
Wii U games will obviously look better over time as they're designed for the hardware, but the degree of improvement seen over this generation really shouldn't be expected.
It's never been a question of whether it's more powerful, but rather how much more powerful.
This sounds nice and all in the face of actual facts but like the link posted in this thread showed, it's not reality.
It just became the case when the facts presented themselves and the shuffling had to begin.
Sure, it's possible that YOU and others with common sense knew the question would be "how much more powerful, not is it more powerful" but don't pretend that everyone knew it was more powerful because whether they have agendas or not, it's not true.
It's the classic case of "OMG LOL it's actually WEAKER than CURRENT GENERATION LMAO"
~real facts begin to surface~
Well DUH, NO SHIT it's more powerful than BLAH BLAH year old tech.
Still with these praising Wii U threads? We get it. You want that "bang for the buck". That's how i felt before i bought the Vita.
We know two things for certain.
The Wii-U is more powerful than current gen. The Wii-U is not as great of a leap in terms of raw power as the traditional generational gap over the previous generation.
Thus, as there isn't a great resolution bump, a new dimension, or massively superior capability it stands to reason that a port, or a game that doesn't push the system wouldn't look heads and shoulders superior to the 2 last gen HD consoles, especially since they've had years to mature. That does not mean, however, that software meant to push the hardware won't look noticeably superior to the offerings on the X-Box 360 and the Playstation 3. It isn't so much more powerful that a port is going to look way better at first glance just by virtue of being on the newer hardware, but I'm quite certain that once Nintendo's own flagship games, as well as 3rd party exclusives not rushed for launch or started on older hardware start to roll out, the Wii-U games will be on a whole, noticeably visually superior. What is weird, is that that is somehow a controversial belief, it should be obvious that more modern and capable hardware would outperform the older, less capable machines. Seems like commons sense.
All of the three.I've never heard them articulate why they chose Nintendo, whether it's out of personal preference or if they feel like they can carve out a niche there, similar to Renegade Kid, or if they just like dealing with Nintendo, or all three. Who knows.
Wii was more powerfull than PS2 - hardly makes it current gen in anything but name and marketing.
Well, the important bits are that the tech is more advanced and superior, so it's not "2006"/ "basically last-gen" tech as some people love to claim, and the often overlooked fact that it's not just about raw computational performance. You can do things on Wii U that would be prohibitive or outright impossible on PS3 and 360 not due to the system being more powerful, but simply because it's much more modern - but you most likely won't see that at launch because it requires different approaches. The "X times/ Y percent faster" stuff doesn't really work.
It's never been a question of whether it's more powerful, but rather how much more powerful.
Gemüsepizza;43011753 said:But how does it help the Wii U? The Wii U is in a lot of trouble, because right now games are not specifically designed to run on the Wii U, they are designed for PS3 and Xbox 360 with a DX9 feature set (or comparable). The GPU of the Wii U may have more features as current gen, but it has not the raw hardware power (like a PC) to make those games look better.
When PS4 and Xbox 720 will be out, games will be designed around DX11/SM5, and Wii U will be in trouble AGAIN.
"Next Generation" as a term has absolutely nothing to do with power.
Where does this "Next gen = more power" stupidity come from?
Wii U could be weaker than the PS2 and it would still count as a next gen system.
Its not a stupidity."Next Generation" as a term has absolutely nothing to do with power.
Where does this "Next gen = more power" stupidity come from?
The powergap between Wii U and PS4/720 will be significantly smaller than Wii to PS360.
Wiis GPU was insanely outdated on launch. Wiis GPU lacked programmable shaders wich PS3 and Xbox 360 have. That was one major problem. And the insane power gap didn´t help the situation!
Wii Us GPU is AT LEAST DX 10.1 and SM4.1. DX11 and SM5 don´t suddenly introduce stuff that would make Wii U incapable of downports!
M°°nblade;43011979 said:Its not a stupidity.
It's a consumer expectation based on every console release of every generation bar the Wii.
Even the Wii had 'more power' than the GC so you can scrap 'bar the Wii'.Yeah... Didn´ the Wii prove that theory wrong?
Gemüsepizza;43011993 said:I doubt that, the powergap will still be very big:
1. The PS4 and Xbox 720 will have a lot more raw hardware power then the Wii U. Higher clock speeds, higher fillrate, more memory, hdd, ...
2. The PS4 and Xbox 720 will have a more advanced feature set than the Wii U, comparable to DX11 and beyond.
I don't mean to say that the Wii U will have no downports. That is always possible, and it will probably be easier then in this gen. But those games simply won't look good. Right now most games are based on DX9 with a few additional DX11 effects for PC. I am quite sure next gen games will make heavy use of DX11. If you have to pass on these features, those games will look bad. And even if the Wii U has all the features of DX11 (which I doubt), those games will still take a heavy hit on the Wii U, because the PS4 and Xbox 720 will probably use all of their raw hardware power to make them run in 720p. You would still have to heavily reduce the effects and/or the resolution.
Gemüsepizza;43011993 said:I doubt that, the powergap will still be very big:
1. The PS4 and Xbox 720 will have a lot more raw hardware power then the Wii U. Higher clock speeds, higher fillrate, more memory, hdd, ...
2. The PS4 and Xbox 720 will have a more advanced feature set than the Wii U, comparable to DX11 and beyond.
I don't mean to say that the Wii U will have no downports. That is always possible, and it will probably be easier then in this gen. But those games simply won't look good. Right now most games are based on DX9 with a few additional DX11 effects for PC. I am quite sure next gen games will make heavy use of DX11. If you have to pass on these features, those games will look bad. And even if the Wii U has all the features of DX11 (which I doubt), those games will still take a heavy hit on the Wii U, because the PS4 and Xbox 720 will probably use all of their raw hardware power to make them run in 720p. You would still have to heavily reduce the effects and/or the resolution.
M°°nblade;43012044 said:Even the Wii had 'more power' than the GC so you can scrap 'bar the Wii'.
I'm sorry, but the argument ended with this...Zelda on GC looked identical to Wii. Only difference was widescreen and Wii version was mirrored.
Yet people bought the Wii. Most bought Zelda on launch even though it looked like the GC version.
M°°nblade;43012044 said:Even the Wii had 'more power' than the GC so you can scrap 'bar the Wii'.
Going by rumors:
Wii U COULD have DX11 an SM5 too, we just don´t know it yet. It has at least DX10.1 and SM4.1 and DX11 + SM5 don´t introduce stuff that make downports impossible.
Jaguar cores = not more CPU horse power, if you are going by that rumor... That only leaves the GPU, wich even at 1.8 tflop would only be around 3x Wii U and not 20x difference like Wii to PS360.
1gb ram COULD become an issue, but Nintendo coud free up OS ram later down the road, as they did with 3DS.