It could be done, but they'd have to be really crafty to pull it off. But then you have to wonder about GTAV coming out on a console that has finished tools and developed by a team that knows the hardware inside and out compared to a game released on a new console with supposedly horrible documentation by a team with no prior experience with the hardware. That said, imagine how much better X would look if created under similar circumstances on Wii U. Let's also not forget about GTAV's budget as well. All in all, I'd say that the amount of time, effort, money, and familiarity required to make something like GTAV on PS360 shows how much more capable Wii U is when something that looks like X can be produced this quickly without the GTA budget or mature tool sets.
It could be done, but they'd have to be really crafty to pull it off. But then you have to wonder about GTAV coming out on a console that has finished tools and developed by a team that knows the hardware inside and out compared to a game released on a new console with supposedly horrible documentation by a team with no prior experience with the hardware. That said, imagine how much better X would look if created under similar circumstances on Wii U. Let's also not forget about GTAV's budget as well. All in all, I'd say that the amount of time, effort, money, and familiarity required to make something like GTAV on PS360 shows him much more capable Wii U is when something that looks like X can be produced this quickly without the GTA budget or mature tool sets.
GTA has never been a graphical showcase. Sadly, that is all we can directly compare. We can't disregard all the underlying systems that run in the background. I won't judge X, since we really don't know about it, but GTA is unrivaled in NPC AI's and activities. You just see so many unique actions and subsystems.
So true, its pretty evident when the plane goes over the dam. Look at the city in the background. Way more fog than city. Nothing has any sort of detail. It looks nice cause of art direction and not actual tech.
GTA V looks amazing all things considered. And it only took 8 years of engine development along with an enormous budget to get there.
The environments we've seen in X so far do, in fact, look a bit bland, but this appears to largely be art direction. I would say X is still impressive considering it's unreleased generation zero Wii U software, running on Monolith's first attempt at a Wii U engine.
The Iwata quote was posted in this thread a while ago, it was an old interview from 2003 but it still represents his views on third parties imo. If it did not then he would have moved heaven and earth (read: put his hand in his pocket) for ports of things like BF4, GTA V, Dark Souls 2, MGS V and Destiny.
X is by far the most impressive looking WiiU game, of that there is no doubt but only in certain instances, look at the start of the trailer and when the main character is walking through the city, it looks really average even for a PS360 game.
I think X would be possible on PS360, they have CPU's with a lot more grunt, only half the RAM but RAM which has more bandwidth and most important of all in terms of loading times / size of areas, it allows developers to install games to the HDD.
Some people in this thread will never accept what WiiU is unfortunately, an XBOX 360 with an extra half a gig of RAM for games, some more eDRAM and a more modern but weaker GPU. It's a tiny power leap over last gen consoles just like Wii was a tiny power leap over PS2, Gamecube and XBOX.
The Iwata quote was posted in this thread a while ago, it was an old interview from 2003 but it still represents his views on third parties imo. If it did not then he would have moved heaven and earth (read: put his hand in his pocket) for ports of things like BF4, GTA V, Dark Souls 2, MGS V and Destiny.
X is by far the most impressive looking WiiU game, of that there is no doubt but only in certain instances, look at the start of the trailer and when the main character is walking through the city, it looks really average even for a PS360 game.
I think X would be possible on PS360, they have CPU's with a lot more grunt, only half the RAM but RAM which has more bandwidth and most important of all in terms of loading times / size of areas, it allows developers to install games to the HDD.
Some people in this thread will never accept what WiiU is unfortunately, an XBOX 360 with an extra half a gig of RAM for games, some more eDRAM and a more modern but weaker GPU. It's a tiny power leap over last gen consoles just like Wii was a tiny power leap over PS2, Gamecube and XBOX.
Seems like you wont' accept the fact that the Wii U isn't what you keep trying to portray it as...I also LOVE how you trivialize the system have twice as much RAM AND eDRAM pools
There's some volumetric fog (actually, I'm not even sure that's the right term anymore...), but then you can see detailed objects that are even farther away. If you are refering to the Rayleigh scattering filter, I believe that has more to do with X actually having the draw distance required to be able to show it realistically. The game would look extremely fake without it. If you look, you can see that the textures of those objects being affected by it are still rendered.
I think X would be possible on PS360, they have CPU's with a lot more grunt, only half the RAM but RAM which has more bandwidth and most important of all in terms of loading times / size of areas, it allows developers to install games to the HDD.
Some people in this thread will never accept what WiiU is unfortunately, an XBOX 360 with an extra half a gig of RAM for games, some more eDRAM and a more modern but weaker GPU. It's a tiny power leap over last gen consoles just like Wii was a tiny power leap over PS2, Gamecube and XBOX.
Seems like you wont' accept the fact that the Wii U isn't what you keep trying to portray it as...I also LOVE how you trivialize the system have twice as much RAM AND eDRAM pools
Show me WiiU games that show a large leap over PS360 games ?. I can accept what WiiU is just fine, I bought the console on day one but I don't try and kid myself that it is anything more than it is.
Show me WiiU games that show a large leap over PS360 games ?. I can accept what WiiU is just fine, I bought the console on day one but I don't try and kid myself that it is anything more than it is.
I never said it was maxed out, if it was anything other than a tiny power leap then it would be fairly easy to post some screenshots of games that show the leap though.
Who are you going to blame when Treyarch develops CoD Ghosts, the excuses of not finished tools / dev kits, and small developers doing cheap ports won't apply anymore and I bet there will still be issues with the game even when compared to the PS360 versions, why ? because the hardware isn't much more powerful than last gen.
Show me WiiU games that show a large leap over PS360 games ?. I can accept what WiiU is just fine, I bought the console on day one but I don't try and kid myself that it is anything more than it is.
I never said it was maxed out, if it was anything other than a tiny power leap then it would be fairly easy to post some screenshots of games that show the leap though.
Who are you going to blame when Treyarch develops CoD Ghosts, the excuses of not finished tools / dev kits, and small developers doing cheap ports won't apply anymore and I bet there will still be issues with the game even when compared to the PS360 versions, why ? because the hardware isn't much more powerful than last gen.
You think that Treyarch is capable of 8 years worth of dev tool fine-tuning for the COD Ghosts Wii U port? If that's the case, World at War would've looked like Ghosts, they'd have done the 8 years worth of tuning to the 360's dev tools back then....
So someone debunks your argument with a shot of PDZ (yay Wall Guy) and you retaliate with PS4 and XBone shots?
It is a good thing I already know that the Wii U is under powered in comparison to those 2 consoles, otherwise I would have been like "WTF Wii U iz lame!"
there are 4 kinds of people dwell in this kind of thread.
1. People who flat out say wii u is same as ps4/xb1.
2. People who are sane and know the limitations and enjoying the games nonetheless.
3. People who own the system yet instead of talking about the games, they cannot stop talking about how the system is crap, and they've wii u is their best line of defense.
4. People who flat out say wii u N64.
to me group no. 3 people are the most annoying and derails any thread.
You think that Treyarch is capable of 8 years worth of dev tool fine-tuning for the COD Ghosts Wii U port? If that's the case, World at War would've looked like Ghosts, they'd have done the 8 years worth of tuning to the 360's dev tools back then....
W@W didn't have slow down though and certain game modes restricted because of the player count, neither did BO.
The excuses of developers not being used to the hardware and unfinished dev tools ect can only be used for so long.
If Splinter Cell Blacklist, Arkham Origins, AC IV, CoD Ghosts and Watch Dogs look or run any better than the PS360 versions then I will take my hat off but they won't because the truth is the WiiU hardware is mostly on par or in some instances weaker than eight year old, last generation consoles.
there are 4 kinds of people dwell in this kind of thread.
1. People who flat out say wii u is same as ps4/xb1.
2. People who are sane and know the limitations and enjoying the games nonetheless.
3. People who own the system yet instead of talking about the games, they cannot stop talking about how the system is crap, and they've wii u is their best line of defense.
4. People who flat out say wii u N64.
to me group no. 3 people are the most annoying and derails any thread.
So people with first hand experience of the console and it's exclusive games aren't allowed to give the view that the console isn't as powerful as some people would have you believe ?...
I have the console and have loved NSMB U, ZombiU, Lego City and Pikmin 3 but I'm not going to spout nonsense about it comparing favorably to PS360 nevermind PS4/XBO.
We do not have confirmed stats so all we can do on regarding the GPU is the games we have and trailers that have been shown with actual gameplay in them.
The people that keep popping into the thread saying 'why post, why post, console wars ect ect' are worse than the ones that keep posting the same gifs over and over again.
Wow, X looks so much colder and barren than GTAV. The characters look much more stiff in X as well.It's to be expected though since this is the first X game and their budgets smaller.
GTA is guaranteed to get amazing sales, so I would think it would be unwise for the developers of X to use a similar budget to make their game (I actually wonder if Nintendo will ever make a top-tier AAA game and if the apathy of third parties to Nintendo is related to their reluctance to compete at a similar level to them, but that is off topic). If it is a matter of comparing GPU effects and features, then comparing a game from a relative newcomer to HD graphics to one with the experience of Rockstar is unfair, especially when each game is at different stages of completion. I suppose the best comparisons will come from the upcoming multiplatform titles, or as posted previously, the Bayonetta 1/2 comparisons. I will admit that so far the Bayonetta 1/2 differences are subtle in my opinion, but then again I have heard of steadier framerates of the game on the WiiU hardware, more enemies, etc.
W@W didn't have slow down though and certain game modes restricted because of the player count, neither did BO.
The excuses of developers not being used to the hardware and unfinished dev tools ect can only be used for so long.
If Splinter Cell Blacklist, Arkham Origins, AC IV, CoD Ghosts and Watch Dogs look or run any better than the PS360 versions then I will take my hat off but they won't because the truth is the WiiU hardware is mostly on par or in some instances weaker than eight year old, last generation consoles.
Your point? Do you think that if Treyarch made BO2 instead of W@W back then that it would have been the same game released in 2012? You think the graphics would have been the same? The features? That's my whole point. The evolution of the dev tools allowed the leap between W@W and BO2.
I'm not saying that Wii U is as powerful as PS4 or even Xbox1, but it is more powerful than PS360. The idea that a new console will somehow have mature tools is like saying that Rockstar was being lazy by not making GTAIV look like V, or Treyarch was by not making W@W look like BO2. The longer a console is out and devs work on them and learn their intricacies, the more they are able to pull out of them. Being able to reach parity and in some cases out-do late-gen ports from hardware it wasn't designed to behave like while running unoptimized code is an example of it's extra power. As dev learn how to program and optimise for the Wii U, we will see similar increases.
Look at X for example, no think about would the team could be capable of if they had an intimate knowledge of the system... let's say 8 years worth of intimate knowledge. You have to consider reality when making claims.
I'll freely admit the city footage of X looked pretty crappy. Comparing it to GTAV is a bit disingenuous though, just like comparing landscapes in GTAV to X isn't quite fair either. GTA takes place mostly in the city, so obviously that's where the game will look its best. X conversely seems to be mostly about the open world in various landscapes so that's where the brunt of their dev time is spent.
This is just common sense but I doubt most people will take it into account.
Yes but have they actually spent a decent chunk of time with the consoles and the games, or have they just looked at screenshots ect, that's my point.
I wasn't a huge fan of Wii because of the forced motion control so I mainly just played the main big Nintendo games but I have played through almost all of the PS360 exclusive games aswell as the majority of multiplatform games this gen.
The WiiU is clearly a newer console, as I have said before the more modern GPU allows for much better DOF aswell as better fire and certain lighting effects but the actual games do not show much of a leap in terms of generations.
Yes Bayonetta 2 looks better than the original, MK looks better than... LBP Karting ?, Smash looks better than All Stars and X is by far the most impressive looking game for the system shown so far but as the guy above me just showed it still doesn't look that great when compared to PS360's bigger games (GTA V).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but after playing on PS360 for eight years and WiiU since launch there really isn't much between them in terms of power IMHO.
If I had to put it in simple terms I would say PS360 and WiiU games look like they are running on the same PC but with different GPU's allowing for different graphical settings. Sometimes it's in PS360's favor and other times WiiU's favor. There is no huge difference though overall.
GTA is guaranteed to get amazing sales, so I would think it would be unwise for the developers of X to use a similar budget to make their game (I actually wonder if Nintendo will ever make a top-tier AAA game and if the apathy of third parties to Nintendo is related to their reluctance to compete at a similar level to them, but that is off topic). If it is a matter of comparing GPU effects and features, then comparing a game from a relative newcomer to HD graphics to one with the experience of Rockstar is unfair, especially when each game is at different stages of completion. I suppose the best comparisons will come from the upcoming multiplatform titles, or as posted previously, the Bayonetta 1/2 comparisons. I will admit that so far the Bayonetta 1/2 differences are subtle in my opinion, but then again I have heard of steadier framerates of the game on the WiiU hardware, more enemies, etc.
I posted the two gifs because people are only comparing the draw distance of the two games.
It's stupid. GTA5 has a lot more going than X ever will. And I expect that from Rockstar. But the draw distance alone isn't a reason to say X looks better than GTA5. People are ignoring the increased NPC count, textures, models and more that X just completely lacks.
i'm asking you man, what's the point of doing this kind of comp. in last 1/2 pages there are 2 GTA V gifs clearly shows fog, yet X shows lot more. yet you brought up 2 other gifs the proof your point(wii u is shit). you know very well GTA V is on a old hardware, X on a new hardware thus the whole comparison is pointless. i was quoting you not to prove wii u is strong, but to prove the comp. is pointless and doesn't bring anything fruitful.
Look at someone not understanding realistic lighting. Considering the draw distance, X would look fake without it. In the real world that effect is due to Rayleigh scattering. It doesn't appear to be used to hide anything.
If the GTAV shot had a monolithic structure in the background, that far away, I'd doubt it would be much more than a faint shadow judging by other sections of the game.
Wow, X looks so much colder and barren than GTAV. The characters look much more stiff in X as well.It's to be expected though since this is the first X game and their budgets smaller.
i'm asking you man, what's the point of doing this kind of comp. in last 1/2 pages there are 2 GTA V gifs clearly shows fog, yet X shows lot more. yet you brought up 2 other gifs the proof your point(wii u is shit). you know very well GTA V is on a old hardware, X on a new hardware thus the whole comparison is pointless. i was quoting you not to prove wii u is strong, but to prove the comp. is pointless and doesn't bring anything fruitful.
It takes a greater distance in X to show the same amount of stuff that is in GTA5. I don't see your point.
And "Wii U is shit" was never my point. I'm saying the comparisons are stupid. People dismissed that GTA5 gif of the plane because of the fog. It's A LOT of fog, no doubt, but that game is packed to the brim. There is nothing in X that indicates that level of detail.
Your point? Do you think that if Treyarch made BO2 instead of W@W back then that it would have been the same game released in 2012? You think the graphics would have been the same? The features? That's my whole point. The evolution of the dev tools allowed the leap between W@W and BO2.
I'm not saying that Wii U is as powerful as PS4 or even Xbox1, but it is more powerful than PS360. The idea that a new console will somehow have mature tools is like saying that Rockstar was being lazy by not making GTAIV look like V, or Treyarch was by not making W@W look like BO2. The longer a console is out and devs work on them and learn their intricacies, the more they are able to pull out of them. Being able to reach parity and in some cases out-do late-gen ports from hardware it wasn't designed to behave like while running unoptimized code is an example of it's extra power. As dev learn how to program and optimise for the Wii U, we will see similar increases.
Look at X for example, no think about would the team could be capable of if they had an intimate knowledge of the system... let's say 8 years worth of intimate knowledge. You have to consider reality when making claims.
GTA IV was an incredible leap over the PS2 GTA games though and it was released in early 2008.
W@W was a 2008 game aswell, Treyarch didn't need '8 years worth of intimate knowledge'.
I would agree, the open World parts of X are really nice looking.
This attitude of "wait for year five-eight games to see what WiiU can really do !" is going to lead to a lot of disappointed people imo.
Nintendo don't tend to make more than one of each franchise on each console they release and a lot of the reason for engine / graphical leaps for PS360 games like Halo 3 to Halo 4 was down to a large increase in budget which Nintendo have said several times that they are not interested in outside of maybe Zelda (which I think will be the best looking WiiU game by far).
I posted the two gifs because people are only comparing the draw distance of the two games.
It's stupid. GTA5 has a lot more going than X ever will. And I expect that from Rockstar. But the draw distance alone isn't a reason to say X looks better than GTA5. People are ignoring the increased NPC count, textures, models and more that X just completely lacks.
Ah, then those are two good scenes to compare if it is about draw distance. It will be interesting to see how the city of X is fleshed out over time, they showed a car for instance, but it would be very funny if that were the only car in the city by the time the game is finished. Same with the pedestrians clipping through each other. Unless the story allows them to cop out while claiming "Population decimation" as the reason for a bland and empty city. The draw distance looks similar to me but obviously GTA has much more going on, so GTA really is the more impressive. What does it say about the WiiU hardware though compared to the previous generation? I admit that the leap hasn't been shown to be great so far. From my limited knowledge about graphics, I subscribe to the idea that the WiiU has similar geometry to the previous generation but with better textures and effects, with hardware power to allow for steadier framerates, etc. Then I hear things about "tessellation" to complicate comparisons? I'll have to do some more studying on certain terms/definitions before I can make judgments on graphics though. But a "see with your own eyes" comparison can be valuable too lol
Ah, then those are two good scenes to compare if it is about draw distance. It will be interesting to see how the city of X is fleshed out over time, they showed a car for instance, but it would be very funny if that were the only car in the city by the time the game is finished. Same with the pedestrians clipping through each other. Unless the story allows them to cop out while claiming "Population decimation" as the reason for a bland and empty city. The draw distance looks similar to me but obviously GTA has much more going on, so GTA really is the more impressive. What does it say about the WiiU hardware though compared to the previous generation? I admit that the leap hasn't been shown to be great so far.
Ah, then those are two good scenes to compare if it is about draw distance. It will be interesting to see how the city of X is fleshed out over time, they showed a car for instance, but it would be very funny if that were the only car in the city by the time the game is finished. Same with the pedestrians clipping through each other. Unless the story allows them to cop out while claiming "Population decimation" as the reason for a bland and empty city. The draw distance looks similar to me but obviously GTA has much more going on, so GTA really is the more impressive. What does it say about the WiiU hardware though compared to the previous generation? I admit that the leap hasn't been shown to be great so far.
Yes..the game looks great but not that good as demonstrated by the gameplay videos.