Support NeoGAF

[2+2=5]

It's totally different imo.
The Wii was way under the bare minimum what looked reasonably acceptable on a HD screen.
The Wii-U looks great on a HD screen.

Will PS4 games look a shitload better? Yes, in many regards they probably will. But the difference will never be as distrubing as it was with the Wii.

Is it only a matter of resolution?
Power and graphics are not the same thing, power can be used for better phisics, better ia, more enemies on screen, more object ot interact with etc.
Look at the number of enemies on 3ds and vita versions of musou games and you will understand.
PS:
a little ot, i tried assault gunners and it has literally hundreds of enemies on screen! :O

You do know they played those games later and confirmed 60 fps for at least a few they thought were 30fps?

Yes I am, this article is outdated.

*partially.

It was updated with rayman and ninja gaiden at 60fps with frame drops.
It's still old? My point remain valid, wiiu is not 60fps locked, so games can go at 30fps or less.

 

[mclem]

Again, system horsepower is more than just graphics. Look how the 3660 started its life in terms of UI, services, and other non-gaming functions and where it is now. Who knows what we will want to use consoles to do in another six years. the more power you have at your disposal the better.

I don't follow. If you had a laptop as powerful as the Wii, what services can the 360 perform that that laptop could not?

Sure, the 360 added a bunch of functionality to the OS, but I don't see all that much of said functionality being driven by the power of the hardware. If anything, much of it was driven by the power of their online offering, and that's not something the hardware is responsible for (well, once you're past an extremely low bar of basic requirements)

 

[Seanspeed]

No! No it's not! We have objective observable evidence!

You have subjective observable evidence, more like it.

For one, # of polygons isn't everything.

Two, technology is still progressing at a pretty impressive rate. Once we start getting to absolutely life-like graphics, then yes, there will be much less room for improvement in graphics, but it seems to me that we're progressing to that point pretty quickly and we're definitely not there yet.

The demo of Watch Dogs we saw was better than what GTAIV looks like on a high end PC with that one mod that makes everything look jaw-droppingly good. If thats what we can expect from next-gen, then it will most definitely be a very noticeable jump and will eventually make this generation of consoles look pretty crap by comparison.

 

[Zaptruder]

Those are also late-gen games compared to what will likely be early next-gen games. Remember launch games from this gen? They looked pretty damn poor now. Even Uncharted looks poor compared to Uncharted 3

That is a ludicrous difference... it's like going from Dragon's Dogma 2 to Uncharted 3.

ba-dum-tsh.

Spoiler

Fuck, I love the shit out of DD though. Game of the generation.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Is it only a matter of resolution?
Power and graphics are not the same thing, power can be used for better phisics, better ia, more enemies on screen, more object ot interact with etc.
Look at the number of enemies on 3ds and vita versions of musou games and you will understand.
PS:
a little ot, i tried assault gunners and it has literally hundreds of enemies on screen! :O

Demon Chaos (PS2) has 65.535 enemies on screen.

It was updated with rayman and ninja gaiden at 60fps with frame drops.
It's still old? My point remain valid, wiiu is not 60fps locked, so games can go at 30fps or less.

Nobody denied this, I just said most of the games run at 60fps currently.

PS4 won't be locked at 60fps either.

 

[BGBW]

Once you're used to playing games that look as good as Watch Dogs, PS3/360 games will look just as bad as PS2/Xbox games look to us now.

Thank God I'm able to appreciate graphics no matter their age. I'd hate not to be able to go back to my old games because of their age.

 

[mclem]

It's still old? My point remain valid, wiiu is not 60fps locked, so games can go at 30fps or less.

It's... kinda impossible to lock hardware to a given framerate.

Edit: Such that it won't go lower, that is. You can of course prevent things from going higher.

 

[shinobi602]

Thank God I'm able to appreciate graphics no matter their age. I'd hate not to be able to go back to my old games because of their age.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can't go back to last gen games at all. No matter how hard I try, my mind just can't get over the fact that "Man, this game looks so much worse than I'm used to now".

I don't mind it though, I have no urges to replay games from previous gens.

 

[LCGeek]

You have subjective observable evidence, more like it.

For one, # of polygons isn't everything.

Two, technology is still progressing at a pretty impressive rate. Once we start getting to absolutely life-like graphics, then yes, there will be much less room for improvement in graphics, but it seems to me that we're progressing to that point pretty quickly and we're definitely not there yet.

The demo of Watch Dogs we saw was better than what GTAIV looks like on a high end PC with that one mod that makes everything look jaw-droppingly good. If thats what we can expect from next-gen, then it will most definitely be a very noticeable jump and will eventually make this generation of consoles look pretty crap by comparison.

Yet there are a variety of people who pointed and showed why watch dogs isn't any better than that. Certainly not texture wise it is any better you can cite animation or even lighting but in some areas don't even see why such a topic would come up vs what we seen vs what we actually have. Also GTA4 is not the top of the line for pc it's a unoptimized port with console assets. People could probably push more out of that engine if wasn't built the way it was.

The argument that console that are old or games that are old get are suddenly defies what we know about gaming audience in general. I get for some crowds here if it isn't current or new it's crap but it's not the majority of gamers be it casual or enthusiasts. This hyperbole needs to stop it's not true or factual and only represents well a very small set of gamers. If you want to say it as view for yourself fine as in how a majority of others see it well I'm calling it out. mobile gaming, indie, gaming, retro gaming, handheld gaming, and this generation should be more than enough evidence not every one sees older games like your crowd or side does even that they care to do so.

I find it funny gamers are expecting an average or locked fps rate when console games have been struggling to even peak 60fps in high end instances.

 

[StoppedInTracks]

Didn't we have the same exact thread when Wii launched. Look how that turned out for non-Nintendo, non-first party games.

 

[Seanspeed]

Thank God I'm able to appreciate graphics no matter their age. I'd hate not to be able to go back to my old games because of their age.

I never said you couldn't go back to old games. Good gameplay and good artstyle dont age like graphics do. I mean, I can appreciate the graphics of older games for what they were at the time, but I dont see whats wrong with saying that older consoles look bad in comparison to new ones.

Trust me, I'm not a graphics whore in the least. I've been playing my Wii more than my 360 lately.

 

[TAS]

My point remain valid, wiiu is not 60fps locked, so games can go at 30fps or less.

What does that even mean? There is no such thing as a console being "60fps locked" lol. Furthermore there is something called optimization. The games demonstrated at E3 are still in development and frame rate drops can easily be ironed out before release.

 

[nordique]

We still don't know where Wii U exactly sits with the other next gen platforms (how much more powerful they ALL are)

and what we do know is some accuracy; some posters such as bg are aware of current Orbis and Durango dev kit specs which are likely the target specs for the final machines barring RAM changes and other tweaks.

And according to him, who I am inclined to believe because he actually has ground to go on and is quite objective in his reasoning, the gap won't be anything preventing developers from porting games.

Additionally, its pretty much a given all next gen GPU's will be GPGPUs (including the Wii U *!*) and thus their architectures are somewhat different than current gen.

I think in terms of raw power there isn't a huge difference between the HD twins and their next gen machines, but once the development tools become overhauled and specified for GPGPUs then there will be a noticeable difference.

The same is with the Wii U. That system is probably somewhere in the middle though, as it will still be weaker than the next MS/Sony systems (which is pretty much a given) but the GPGPU capability will put it on a level where it may be able to handle the same game albeit "lower settings"

 

[Captain Smoker]

The only important question is if the Wii U is going to get multiplatform-games. Noone registrates graphics after 10 minutes of gameplay.

And we can anwser this question in one year at the earliest.

 

[IrishNinja]

first post does it as usual, but...to the important 3rd party question, for me it goes like this: barring the other 2 actually running with anti-used game stuff (or both charging for online), a game would have to innovatively use the u-pad to push me over there. it's not simply about achievements/trophies or the definitive version (as i dont buy all my games on PC, though that has been increasing for me), but i do seek out the best experience for the money. if its something online and friends will play, obviously that affects it as well.

i think if it manages to run UE4 or whichever engines become default next gen, they'll at least be in a much better place to have the option open. but yeah, looking at the COD thread yesterday, there's a big uphill battle to be made, not just in terms of squeezing performance from expected specs, but expected offerings/perception as well. me, im going in like every other nintendo console since the SNES: if 3rd parties show and make solid exclusives, all the better, but if not, i still get my money's worth.

 

[MrCunningham]

The vast majority of games I buy are third party so yes it matters.

That just about sums it up. If you plan on getting a Wii U for the first party games. Then no; no it doesn't really matter at all if the Wii U is inferior hardware to the PS4 and 730 . Nintando has been working with the Gamecube hardware since 2001, the Wii is just an extension of that. Sure the Wii is higher clocked and has a bit more ram, but it is still the same hardware at its core.

By Nintendo First party standards, the Wii U hardware will be satisfactory for their needs. And I think most customers will be perfectly content if the games looked like current generation titles or slightly better. I would imagine that Nintendo and all their first party teams will be able to take advantage of the hardware with no real issues. The jump from Wii to Wii U will be massive for them.

Third Party on the other hand... I could see the Wii U being a bit of a problem here, since most like to push multi-console releases. I don't think it will be a problem for the first year of the Wii U, but as soon as the PS4 and XBox 360 hit the market, then there might be some growing pains trying to get the Wii U to match the performance of the other higher end console multi-platform releases.

 

[Seanspeed]

Yet there are a variety of people who pointed and showed why watch dogs isn't any better than that. Certainly not texture wise it is any better you can cite animation or even lighting but in some areas don't even see why such a topic would come up vs what we seen vs what we actually have. Also GTA4 is not the top of the line for pc it's a unoptimized port with console assets. People could probably push more out of that engine if wasn't built the way it was.

Maybe, but the point is that its still jaw-dropping with the ICE mod or whatever its called. Its possibly the best looking game I've seen. Sure, there might be some games which have a little bit better textures or whatever you want to nitpick at, but the overall result is gorgeous and I think Watch Dog looks equal, if not better, overall. I see the huge jump in quality already. If this is just a taste of things to come, I definitely believe we're gonna be quite impressed by what we get. PC's may keep up and surpass the new consoles in graphics yet again, but the main point is that compared to what we have now, it should be a pretty noticeable leap.

The argument that console that are old or games that are old get are suddenly defies what we know about gaming audience in general. I get for some crowds here if it isn't current or new it's crap but it's not the majority of gamers be it casual or enthusiasts. This hyperbole needs to stop it's not true or factual and only represents well a very small set of gamers. If you want to say it as view for yourself fine as in how a majority of others see it well I'm calling it out. mobile gaming, indie, gaming, retro gaming, handheld gaming, and this generation should be more than enough evidence not every one sees older games like your crowd or side does even that they care to do so.

I find it funny gamers are expecting an average or locked fps rate when console games have been struggling to even peak 60fps in high end instances.

You're talking to the wrong person here, cuz I've made none of these claims. I still play my DS(regular DS, not 3DS which I dont have). I'm playing my Wii a lot(granted I'm fairly new to it) and the only other dedicated gaming machine I own is the 360, which cant even quite match what some of the AAA PS3 titles do. My PC is a lowly piece of garbage that just scrapes by and I still get slowdown playing Diablo 2 when there's a lot of enemies on-screen.

 

[2+2=5]

What does that even mean? There is no such thing as a console being "60fps locked" lol. Furthermore there is something called optimization. The games demonstrated at E3 are still in development and frame rate drops can easily be ironed out before release.

Every single launch game could even run at 15442fps, this doesn't mean that every single wiiu game will run at 60fps, hence the "if a game reach 60 fps" of my first(or second?) comment. Is it now clear?

 

[flyinpiranha]

And nobody's saying that there won't be any difference.

Not a single person.

Zero people.

None.


Just that, according basic pattern recognition and a basic understand of technology, the difference won't be nearly as big as it was in previous generations.

I disagree. I also disagree with your "levels" of jumps and the "differences" .

I understand diminishing returns but you're talking about one part of the equation. Just in racers we went from 4-5 cars to 16 cars. Next generation we'll probably be able to do more or have the models looking better.

It's really up to the developers. If you choose the TOP games from every generation you can easily see how huge of a leap there is between them, this will happen with the next assuming that Sony and MS are going that route.

I remember Tomb Raider being amazing looking. FFVII was a graphical showcase. MGS was amazing. Then MGS2/3, then FFX, GTA:SA, Halo, GT3, then we jump to GTA IV, Uncharted, Gears of War. Maybe you can't see the huge leap in between those, but I do, and many others do also.

 

[shinobi602]

I disagree. I also disagree with your "levels" of jumps and the "differences" as perceived by this imaginary group of viewers that support your opinion.

I understand diminishing returns but you're talking about one part of the equation. Just in racers we went from 4-5 cars to 16 cars. Next generation we'll probably be able to do more or have the models looking better.

It's really up to the developers. If you choose the TOP games from every generation you can easily see how huge of a leap there is between them, this will happen with the next assuming that Sony and MS are going that route.

I remember Tomb Raider being amazing looking. FFVII was a graphical showcase. MGS was amazing. Then MGS2/3, then FFX, GTA:SA, Halo, GT3, then we jump to GTA IV, Uncharted, Gears of War. Maybe you can't see the huge leap in between those, but I do, and many others do also.

Well said. I see significant jumps every gen.

I honestly haven't seen very many games that on the PS3 and 360 that couldn't reasonably have been recreated on the previous generation. That is to say, "next gen" this time around has really mostly amounted to little more than a resolution bump.

Holy shit

 

[Buddha Beam]

I honestly haven't seen very many games that on the PS3 and 360 that couldn't reasonably have been recreated on the previous generation. That is to say, "next gen" this time around has really mostly amounted to little more than a resolution bump. I think that was more than enough for most people, too. Look at how people go crazy of Wii and Gamecube games when run through Dolphin. All it's really doing is boosting the resolution and that seems to be good enough for most people. The conclusion I draw from that is that Nintendo's biggest mistake with the Wii was probably the fact that it couldn't support HD resolutions.

And honestly, judging by the peek we saw of games running on high end PCs at this year's E3, it looks like games next generation are basically going to be the same thing... except with lots more particle effect physics going on, apparently. Oh boy.

Dead Rising is actually probably the only game I played this generation that I would truly consider "next gen", in that it clearly couldn't be replicated in a meaningful way on weaker hardware.

Thats all a roundabout way of saying that I suspect there is going to be little reason Wii U SHOULD be ignored next generation with the PS4 and 720 on the market. I mean, it'll still be ignored and shunned, but hey.

 

[LCGeek]

Maybe, but the point is that its still jaw-dropping with the ICE mod or whatever its called. Its possibly the best looking game I've seen. Sure, there might be some games which have a little bit better textures or whatever you want to nitpick at, but the overall result is gorgeous and I think Watch Dog looks equal, if not better, overall. I see the huge jump in quality already. If this is just a taste of things to come, I definitely believe we're gonna be quite impressed by what we get. PC's may keep up and surpass the new consoles in graphics yet again, but the main point is that compared to what we have now, it should be a pretty noticeable leap.


You're talking to the wrong person here, cuz I've made none of these claims. I still play my DS(regular DS, not 3DS which I dont have). I'm playing my Wii a lot(granted I'm fairly new to it) and the only other dedicated gaming machine I own is the 360, which cant even quite match what some of the AAA PS3 titles do. My PC is a lowly piece of garbage that just scrapes by and I still get slowdown playing Diablo 2 when there's a lot of enemies on-screen.

You did and my points are about graphics not the content or mechanics of the game themselves. Your basic point which is what others have said is that something next gen really good will make something this gen crappy. I say no to that thought. If something looks good to me it doesn't get worse because something far superior comes out. Early 3d games are the only games I feel this for. This never applies for me in 2d gaming and even now with PS2 level stuff and higher it's not true unless the original base was crap to begin with.

Diablo2 is a old crap you can't even change the res to more modern stuff. I love d2 as well but comparing old blizzard games in which you can't change the resolution to their more modern stuff hell even warcraft 3 which you could change things isn't really a fair comparison to something on the Wii or WiiU.

 

[KevinCow]

In your opinion.

Hahahaha.

Okay, okay. Here.

Now, tell me that the difference between Star Fox and Perfect Dark is equal or lesser than the leap from RE4 to UC3. Tell me that jump from Joanna (whose face would have no definition without a texture and who has no fingers) to Leon is not far more dramatic than the jump from Leon to Nate.

Please, tell me that you can look at these four pictures in a row, four pictures representing some of the best 3D graphics of each respective generation, and not immediately see the diminishing returns smacking you in the face.

Because, going back to the evolution metaphor, I have gotten tired of explaining genetics to you and just decided to show you the damn fossil trail. If you're still gonna insist that you don't believe in diminishing returns, then there's no hope for you.

Well said. I see significant jumps every gen.

I swear, it's like bashing my face against a brick wall.

"Red, Orange, and Green are all clearly different colors, but Orange and Green are clearly more different than Red and Orange."

"NO UR WRONG THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT COLORS"

 

[velvet_nitemare]

It does matter. To third parties, and to me. Great gameplay is great but great gameplay and great graphics is even better. By the 3rd year of next gen devs will really come into their own and i hope they can make things happen with great hardware.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

I'll be speaking for myself, but it doesn't matter to me.

I'll be picking up a WiiU for Nintendo exclusive games that I can't play anywhere else, and I'm sure I'll get a PS4 or a 720 (or whatever it'll be called) as well. Possibly both. I guess I just don't get this fascination with graphics or processing power... It's disheartening to me that people actually can't enjoy an experience because they think that it "could look better than it does." If third parties don't come on board, so be it. I have a PC and the other system for that.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can't go back to last gen games at all. No matter how hard I try, my mind just can't get over the fact that "Man, this game looks so much worse than I'm used to now".

I don't mind it though, I have no urges to replay games from previous gens.

*sigh*

 

[shinobi602]

I swear, it's like bashing my face against a brick wall.

"Red, Orange, and Green are all clearly different colors, but Orange and Green are clearly more different than Red and Orange."

"NO UR WRONG THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT COLORS"

Don't really give a shit what you think my man. My eyes and my mind are telling me something, and I go by that.

Leon to Nate might not seem as big a jump from Star Fox to Perfect Dark, but it's still a huge jump to me. Not sure why you're having a problem with that.

 

[mclem]

Every single launch game could even run at 15442fps, this doesn't mean that every single wiiu game will run at 60fps, hence the "if a game reach 60 fps" of my first(or second?) comment. Is it now clear?

What's not clear quite what you expect the Wii U - or indeed any console - to *do* about that. Your phrasing seems to regard it as a flaw that games *can* run at 30fps. I don't see how any system could *prevent* that.

 

[MThanded]

No. It doesn't.

The lowest common denominator doesn't care about graphics.

Make a system with games people wan't to to play.

 

[MrCunningham]

The conclusion I draw from that is that Nintendo's biggest mistake with the Wii was probably the fact that it couldn't support HD resolutions.

I would say it was a bit of a double edged sword for Nintendo. When the console launched in 2006, HD output wasn't really a big deal. The HDTV adoption rate was low in most regions of the world, and Nintendo banked on that early on. But I would also say, that it kinda hurt the Wii in the later years of its lifecycle. Right around the moment that the HD twins started dropping in price to Wii levels, the Wii became much less of an appealing console to the mass market.

This is the reason why Nintendo wants to jump into the HD arena now, they feel like it is the right time for them.

 

[M-PG71C]

Whatever, frankly. I buy Nintendo products because I want to play Nintendo games. Anything else above and beyond that is gravy. So the graphics and such, I really don't give a fuck.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Hahahaha.

Okay, okay. Here.



Now, tell me that the difference between Star Fox and Perfect Dark is equal or lesser than the leap from RE4 to UC3. Tell me that jump from Joanna (whose face would have no definition without a texture and who has no fingers) to Leon is not far more dramatic than the jump from Leon to Nate.

Please, tell me that you can look at these four pictures in a row, four pictures representing some of the best 3D graphics of each respective generation, and not immediately see the diminishing returns smacking you in the face.

Because, going back to the evolution metaphor, I have gotten tired of explaining genetics to you and just decided to show you the damn fossil trail. If you're still gonna insist that you don't believe in diminishing returns, then there's no hope for you.



I swear, it's like bashing my face against a brick wall.

"Red, Orange, and Green are all clearly different colors, but Orange and Green are clearly more different than Red and Orange."

"NO UR WRONG THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT COLORS"

Why not Video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR51GbD0BKM

Vs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MmvdIuLjHQ

I mean, are you serious? A compressed screenshot does nothing for a comparison. Watch both of those videos and tell me there isn't a HUGE leap.

 

[mclem]

Leon to Nate might not seem as big a jump from Star Fox to Perfect Dark, but it's still a huge jump to me. Not sure why you're having a problem with that.

There's two contexts in your statement here, so just to iron that out...

Do *you* regard the jump from Star Fox to Perfect Dark as *as* big a jump as the one from RE4 to Uncharted 3? I'm curious if the "might not seem" refers to people in general or you specifically.

I mean, are you serious? A compressed screenshot does nothing for a comparison. Watch both of those videos and tell me there isn't a HUGE leap.

Surely you should supply four videos, given that part of the point of diminishing returns is the effect relative to previous iterations?

 

[Always-honest]

Is it only a matter of resolution?
Power and graphics are not the same thing, power can be used for better phisics, better ia, more enemies on screen, more object ot interact with etc.
Look at the number of enemies on 3ds and vita versions of musou games and you will understand.

jesus... Ofcourse it's not just resolution you €&%^$. But the wiiU Entered the HD scene and with that comes all the bells and whistles that ps3 and 360 had, and maybe a bit extra.

"Power and graphics are not the same thing"
You don't say, captain obvious....

 

[shinobi602]

There's two contexts here, just to iron that out...

Do you regard the jump from Star Fox to Perfect Dark as *as* big a jump as the one from RE4 to Uncharted 3? I'm curious if the "might not seem" refers to people in general or you specifically.

Seems like a bigger jump. But RE4 to UC3 is still a massive jump in my opinion.

Like flyinpirahna said though, video does it much more justice than pictures. Watching both in motion, RE4 to UC3 is a huge leap.

 

[mclem]

Seems like a bigger jump.

That's diminishing returns.

Of course, that's purely from a technological standpoint. Would be interesting to also compare the budgets of all those titles. I'm pretty sure they'd demonstrate more significant diminishing returns.

 

[shinobi602]

That's diminishing returns.

Of course, that's purely from a technological standpoint. Would be interesting to also compare the budgets of all those titles. I'm pretty sure they'd demonstrate more significant diminishing returns.

Sure, but the jump from gen to gen is what any reasonable person would expect. The leap from last gen to this gen is still massive to me.

When I compare GTA:SA to GTA4, God of War to God of War 3, Halo: CE/Halo 2 to Halo 4...

Fully within expectations.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Keeping comparisons within the same genre might help. Something like Virtua Racing to Rage Racer to PGR2 to Burnout Paradise? Or Doom to Perfect Dark to Halo 2 to Modern Warfare 2?

 

[Kai Dracon]

No. It doesn't.

The lowest common denominator doesn't care about graphics.

Make a system with games people wan't to to play.

What's been the killer app among mainstream console game players for the last six years?

Call of Duty, a game in which the only thing that really matters is 60fps and great online play. Other people sniff at the games because the graphics are "so bad". Doesn't mean squat.

Really, arguing over hardware power in consoles is really about arguing which consoles will get the best looking tip-top elite premium AAA(A) games - but the joke is expensive graphics and production values ! = sales or popularity. Such games might impress critically, and they might cause enthusiast gamers to cheer at the 'advancement of the state of the art'. But at the end of the day what really pushed Xbox Live and Xbox sales was a shitty looking multiplayer first person shooter that comes in 3 shades of brown.

I would say it was a bit of a double edged sword for Nintendo. When the console launched in 2006, HD output wasn't really a big deal. The HDTV adoption rate was low in most regions of the world, and Nintendo banked on that early on. But I would also say, that it kinda hurt the Wii in the later years of its lifecycle. Right around the moment that the HD twins started dropping in price to Wii levels, the Wii became much less of an appealing console to the mass market.

This is the reason why Nintendo wants to jump into the HD arena now, they feel like it is the right time for them.

I believe the Wii not having HD output caused a tremendous amount of psychic damage to the platform as far as acceptance among core gamers. Back in the day, I couldn't throw a brick without hitting someone who refused to buy a Wii because it didn't match their HDTV. Didn't matter if the games were any fun; they didn't want a grainy upscaled image on the shiny new televsion - and if you think about it, that aversion factor would have been more important then than today. Today HDTVs are a commodity and you can pick one up for a couple of hundred bucks. Six years ago, they were the sexy new technology that only the people on the leading edge invested in. Those folks would be far more picky about what was acceptable.

It also affected people who did buy a Wii. Example: someone I knew stopped using his Wii even though there were games like Muramasa or Red Steel II he knew about, and was interested in. But he wouldn't spend money on any more Wii games because it was "a waste" to play such games on his giant HD screen.

I wonder how much this contributed to the stigma (and reality) that the Wii couldn't push hardcore games even when they got released on it and were good - nobody would buy them despite the system being in so many homes, there surely were a fair number of core gamers who did own one.

 

[mclem]

Fully within expectations.

And financially? Is that within expectations too?

 

[shinobi602]

And financially? Is that within expectations too?

From standard definition to high definition with the capability of so much more detail? I'm not financially capable of answering that with any accuracy to be honest so I don't know. Though I don't expect budgets and dev costs to jump as much as last gen to this gen. We're not making huge leaps like SD to HD this time.

 

[ASIS]

WiiU doesn't need power per se. By it needs competitive specs to get support.

Pretty much what most people said in this thread.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Seems like a bigger jump. But RE4 to UC3 is still a massive jump in my opinion.

Like flyinpirahna said though, video does it much more justice than pictures. Watching both in motion, RE4 to UC3 is a huge leap.

I think RE 4 vs RE 5 is a more appropriate comparison since the same company made both and and similar gameplay mechanics/animations.

 

[mclem]

From standard definition to high definition with the capability of so much more detail? I'm not financially capable of answering that with any accuracy.

Then how are you so certain that diminishing returns don't exist?

 

[2+2=5]

What's not clear quite what you expect the Wii U - or indeed any console - to *do* about that. Your phrasing seems to regard it as a flaw that games *can* run at 30fps. I don't see how any system could *prevent* that.

Let's restart, is said that only if a game runs at 60fps(will every single wiiu game run at 60 fps? i don't think so) then it will run at 60fps on one tablet and 30fps on two.
This is what i said, is it wrong?

 

[KevinCow]

Don't really give a shit what you think my man. My eyes and my mind are telling me something, and I go by that.

Leon to Nate might not seem as big a jump from Star Fox to Perfect Dark, but it's still a huge jump to me. Not sure why you're having a problem with that.

Because I'm not arguing that it's not a huge jump.

I mean.

Holy fucking shit.

How are you not getting this.

UC3 looks fucking incredible. It looks WAY better than RE4. I'm not saying it doesn't.

I'm sure there will be games next gen that also look fucking incredible in a way that couldn't be done on current gen consoles.

But it won't be as big as the leap from RE4 to UC3.

Which wasn't as big as the leap from PD to RE4.

Which wasn't as big as the leap from Star Fox to PD.

You admit it yourself:

Leon to Nate might not seem as big a jump from Star Fox to Perfect Dark

That. That's it. Right there. That's diminishing returns. That's the entire point of what I'm saying.

It doesn't mean things can't or won't look better. It just means they won't look as better.

If you're a multi-billionaire, getting a million bucks isn't nearly as exciting as it is for a regular-ass Joe.

If you're benching 500lbs, adding an extra 20 on isn't nearly as noticeable as it would be to the guy who's still just benching the bar.

If you're blind in one eye and suddenly gain sight in the other, that's not nearly as huge as someone who's blind in both eyes and suddenly gains sight in one of them.

Diminishing. Fucking. Returns.

 

[mclem]

Let's restart, is said that only if a game runs at 60fps(will every single wiiu game run at 60 fps? i don't think so) then it will run at 60fps on one tablet and 30fps on two.
This is what i said, is it wrong?

It's true for one tablet. For two, it depends on the precise nature of the bottleneck.

If it's running at 30fps on the main game because the *CPU* is taking too long to do the game logic for the next frame, it's possible that the tablets could still both run at 30fps. If the render path's the bottleneck, though, the tablets are likely to suffer accordingly.

How a GPGPU fits into that... I'm not quite sure. Never used one directly.

 

[Seanspeed]

You did and my points are about graphics not the content or mechanics of the game themselves. Your basic point which is what others have said is that something next gen really good will make something this gen crappy. I say no to that thought. If something looks good to me it doesn't get worse because something far superior comes out. Early 3d games are the only games I feel this for. This never applies for me in 2d gaming and even now with PS2 level stuff and higher it's not true unless the original base was crap to begin with.

Diablo2 is a old crap you can't even change the res to more modern stuff. I love d2 as well but comparing old blizzard games in which you can't change the resolution to their more modern stuff hell even warcraft 3 which you could change things isn't really a fair comparison to something on the Wii or WiiU.

I really dont even know what you're talking about anymore. I only brought up Diablo 2 to show that even a game like that gives my PC trouble, just showing that I'm not a graphics whore or anything that says that anything thats not top of the line or brand new is crap.

But when you say that if something looks good to you now, it doesn't get worse when something far superior comes out - you dont even realize you're contradicting yourself within the very same sentence. You're admitting that something is far superior, which by definition, means the other thing is worse. I'm not saying you cant appreciate the older graphics for what they are, just that there's nothing wrong with admitting that older stuff looks bad relative to the new stuff. <--- Key word italicized there.

 

[muu]

I don't remember anyone complaining about how ps2 was holding the last gen behind. Outside of the typical Nintendo hate its a nonissue.

 

[Jonm1010]

Hahahaha.

Okay, okay. Here.



Now, tell me that the difference between Star Fox and Perfect Dark is equal or lesser than the leap from RE4 to UC3. Tell me that jump from Joanna (whose face would have no definition without a texture and who has no fingers) to Leon is not far more dramatic than the jump from Leon to Nate.

Please, tell me that you can look at these four pictures in a row, four pictures representing some of the best 3D graphics of each respective generation, and not immediately see the diminishing returns smacking you in the face.

Because, going back to the evolution metaphor, I have gotten tired of explaining genetics to you and just decided to show you the damn fossil trail. If you're still gonna insist that you don't believe in diminishing returns, then there's no hope for you.



I swear, it's like bashing my face against a brick wall.

"Red, Orange, and Green are all clearly different colors, but Orange and Green are clearly more different than Red and Orange."

"NO UR WRONG THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT COLORS"

I'm really not sure I'm understanding the point of your argument??

The only reason we may not(and in all likelihodd will not) see a leap as big as this gen to next as we have previously is because the console manufacturers are unwilling to do so for any number of reasons: they rather focus more development costs toward services, they find that including bleeding edge tech will cut into profits unnecisarrily, they don't want to sell at a loss, they don't want 800w systems that look like computer towers(since the advancement of tech has ignored power concerns).

The possibility for a leap as big as last gen or prior gens is certainly there, I mean compare something like Avatar to Uncharted or Pixars latest offerings to God of War. We have quite a lot of room still until people - normal people - wont be able to tell the difference between advancements. Or that the possibility for leaps as noticeable as playstation to playstation2 to continue. They don't because economics and profit motives get in the way. But the possibility is still there given the gap that exists between where game technology is and where it can max out at(indistinguishable from real life).

The diminishing returns that are occurring are due to those factors and technological advancement slightly slowing down, not that people won't see as great a leap from uncharted to avatar as they perceived going from star fox to perfect dark. Which is what seems odd about your argument.

 

[shinobi602]

Lol, ok Kevincow. I get it, point taken.

Games should blow this gen away and that's all that matters to me haha.