Not impressive at all.
Even the blue ball looks blocky...
I hope we'll see a larger leap for next gen gfx.
Now this is next gen :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LYpUw3Rx0c
WiiU "Latte" GPU Die Photo - GPU Feature Set And Power Analysis
- Thread starter Thraktor
- Start date
- Status
GameGuru59
Banned
Making the city look like GTA's is a waste of their time. They're not making GTA, they're making an RPG with a massive scale several times larger than GTA. Trying to make the game look and feel like GTA would put the game in development hell, much like the recent Final Fantasy games. GTA is a game that's fun because its a realistic parody of real life. X will be fun because its a great Japanese RPG. They're two different games. Besides, the wilderness scenes in GTAV can't hold a candle to X's. Neither can RDR's.
The Wii U will be the Dreamcast of this generation. Significantly more powerful than the consoles before it, but not as powerful as the consoles after it. However, I do believe that Nintendo's knack for super-efficient design will help the Wii U keep up somewhat, as its based on the same design principals as the GameCube- a fantastic design.
Nostremitus
Member
Stop with the strawman, stuff.
I never said that W@W had 8 years worth of intimate knowledge behind it and that's my whole point. It shows. W@W looks like shit compared to late gen games in the same franchise. That's the proof that mature development tools make a huge difference. Perhaps read the posts you respond to...
You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you has a pie-in-the-sky view of the Wii U. That's not the case. The Wii U is not as powerful as the Xbox1, that's a given. But to say that it's weaker or "on par" with PS360 is a logical falacy. You can say that early showings are on par or weaker than late gen outings on PS360, and that would be absolutely true. But you can't completely disregard the reality of the development environment that has been discussed in pretty great detail. There's no need for the "us versus them" vibes you're throwing off, this isn't the place for console warriors.
So in short, it would be unwise to try to glean anything about relative performance of the WiiU compared to the previous generation from comparing the two. And the topic is about the WiiU's GPU as hardware, not about the games, so I apologize if I took things further off topic.
Nice comparison. Though, to be fair, GTA's primary gameplay and story revolves around the streets and the life around it. I bet a large amount of the development budget (which is likely several magnitudes higher than X's) went to building up the city. X with it's less budget, can't even come close, not to mention the bet the city aspect of the game is a smaller part in comparison to GTA.
LOD is there as a compromise for performance, but if LOD is done right it shouldn't be noticable, there shouldn't be just blocks without detail. IMO blocks without detail are LOD gone wrong, there should at least be a texture that approximates the geometric and texture detail from the base LOD. Though, if you use texture space for LOD, it takes away from texture space for the foreground. Perhaps if GTA had access to another half gig of ram
Apophis2036
Banned
But, but it's a first gen game with incomplete tools / dev kits and it takes time for developers to learn the hardware !!!
It works both ways... except in this case you can already see the massive generational leap on offer from PS4.
Nostremitus
Member
Well... at least you're admitting that it exists now. To my knowledge, none of us have argued against the point you just made. It's the same point we've been making.
The Wii U is more powerful than PS360, the PS4 is a lot more powerful than PS360. Both will only look better as the development tools evolve.
phosphor112
Banned
No, that's fake.
phosphor112
Banned
LOD is there as a compromise for performance, but if LOD is done right it shouldn't be noticable, there shouldn't be just blocks without detail. IMO blocks without detail are LOD gone wrong, there should at least be a texture that approximates the geometric and texture detail from the base LOD. Though, if you use texture space for LOD, it takes away from texture space for the foreground. Perhaps if GTA had access to another half gig of ram
Looks fine to me.
Apophis2036
Banned
No my point has always been that WiiU doesn't have a game that shows the hardware is anything other than a tiny leap over PS360.
GameGuru59
Banned
Developers say its more than a tiny leap.
Nostremitus
Member
The bolded is absolutely true, there has yet to be a large budget game released on it. It takes time and money to make games like that. And even then, it still depends on what that time and money were spent on and the tools available.( See W101.)
megabytecr
Member
I have had a PS3 for 4-5 years now and I love how the games on the Wii U look, even those released at launch. Nintendo Land shows a lot of advanced effects and has a very good IQ.
I think next batch of 3rd party games will show better than PS360, unless Criterion programmers are are some kind of tech wizards (they are very good), the other teams must be catching up to the system. So I expect better than last time, just don't know how much, I want to be surprised!! Who do you think can pull it off? Ubi, Treyarch, WB or SE? I am betting for Treyarch.
IMO the best example is Bayo 2. I posted several screens in this thread Here . I think you are the one who does not own a Wii U.
TW101 although somewhat simple, is very crisp, runs at 60fps and I also see some advanced effects in there.
Interceptor
Banned
I may be wrong but wasn´t this thread intended to be about the capabilities of the wii u gpu and not console wars. I might have missed some announcemend, wasn´t around for 2 weeks.
Actually, I'm not sure it was the budget itself as much as it was a) prioritization of that budget and b) outsourcing to cut dev time.
Halo 4 has less modes and features than Halo 3. Halo 4's enemy AI (a hallmark of the Bungie era titles) and scale of combat and environments are a lot worse than Halo 3. Sure Halo 4 has pretty corridors disguised as "epic" levels, but they're corridors and nothing comes close to some of the larger levels or large scale combat in H3.
Apophis2036
Banned
You're right, I couldn't possibly own the console and still be cynical of it being anything other than a tiny leap over last gen consoles, grow up...
I sent you a private message, feel free to message me on WiiU for proof that I have one
.Yeap, X lacks completely everything.
Also, as I saw on previous page that you were curious about Bayonetta 2 and you seem eager to comment on games you haven't seen, you can check what you wanted to check here:
http://videos.videopress.com/b1UcwD...r7e6b5b7e5a496e382b5e382a4e38388e794a8_hd.mp4
megabytecr
Member
You're right, I couldn't possibly own the console and still be cynical of it being anything other than a tiny leap over last gen consoles, grow up...
I sent you a private message, feel free to message me on WiiU for proof that I have one
No man relax, its not a big deal so that I message you.
Did you see the Bayo 1 vs Bayo 2 screens? For me that is great proof that Wii U's GPU is better than PS360, looks better plus runs smooth 60fps vs 40-45 in X360.
Personally that alleviated in my case many concerns I had. I am pretty happy with the Wii U if it results in 2x or 2.5x a PS360. That plus the RAM size advantage and memory architecture should yield very good games in the future.
X has a lot of promise from what we have seen but seems it is a long shot to be released soon, so I think it should not be used yet.
Somehow I cannot take away from my head how MK8 and SSB looks, cannot wait for the finished product, so vivid and alive.
Apophis2036
Banned
Fair enough but I would suggest that you don't go throwing childish accusations around like "you must not own one if that's your opinion" in the future.
Yes Bayonetta 2 looks nice but a new next gen console nice ?, not for me. Also as others have said before, who is to say that Bayonetta 2 wouldn't have looked much better on PS360 had it been made for them instead, maybe not to the level of the WiiU version but certainly improved over Bayonetta 1 on those consoles.
Also didn't the XB360 version of Bayonetta run at 60fps ?, I thought it was the PS3 version that ran at 45fps, I played it on PS3 and thought it was fine tbh.
I agree that Bayonetta 2, X, MK8 and Smash all look really nice and I'm sure Zelda U will look as good if not better than those but I'm still not buying that these games are significantly better looking than the likes of Halo, Forza, Gears, Fable, Uncharted, God of War, Last of Us, GT, Heavy Rain ect, ect.
The console is a tiny power leap over PS360 and nothing shown in this thread proves otherwise.
Look at Killzone Shadow Fall, Infamous Second Son, Driveclub, Ryse and Dead Rising 3. Those are the type of visuals you get when the hardware is significantly more powerful than PS360.
The_Intruder
Member
Fixed
Nostremitus
Member
Please consider your own actions before insulting someone elses, especially considering that he was directly responding you doing the exact thing you are calling childish.
For what it's worth, I have a PS3 and a mid-tier PC that blows my PS3 out of the water. From my experience, most of those crappy Wii U launch titles ran better on Wii U than my PS3. PS3 had more screen tearing and framerate drops. (Mass Effect 3 and BO2) So, that's another reason why really don't understand your stance. That's a console with a robust development environment compared to the new kid on the block. The only way the Wii U could fare better is if it were a bit more powerful.
megabytecr
Member
Ok man more power to you, that is your opinion. Several here including myself don't think this way, so we will leave it at that.
Why the PS4 and XB1 references? No one here is suggesting the Wii U is near those 2.
FYI Bayo 1 is 30 on PS3 and mid-high 40s on X360.
Could not have said it better myself. I was not being childish either, you started the suppositions first. Oh it cannot be, they are not thinking like me, must be they are Nintendo only gamers.
I really don't get the big ongoing discussion. It is more or less obvious that the XBox One and PS4 are more powerful systems when it comes down to raw numbers. The real question, however, should be whether that is relevant. We have come to a point where even a significant increase in tech gives very little actual effect. As long as games on the WiiU look good and are fun to play, what does it matter if the other consoles can display somewhat better graphics? The difference is certainly nowhere near as big as it was between the Wii and the 360 / PS3 (and still quite a few Wii games were absolutely gorgeous simply because of their art). If there is one thing the end of this generation has shown us, it is that developers already have all the relevant tools to make the games as big and as pretty as you might want them.
Edit: With the same thought, nothing we have seen so far for the PS4 or XBox One looks like it would not be possible on last gen systems with a few concessions. But it's possible that I am simply more used to high-end PC levels of visual display.
Edit: With the same thought, nothing we have seen so far for the PS4 or XBox One looks like it would not be possible on last gen systems with a few concessions. But it's possible that I am simply more used to high-end PC levels of visual display.
Apophis2036
Banned
I wasn't attempting to be childish, it was a genuinely serious question.
Uhh, yeah, check this out: http://i.imgur.com/BSE7yyA.jpg The low-res buildings hurt my eyes. Oh wait, it's a work in progress, like any other game for Wii U we mentioned above. Well, except Infamous should release pretty early next year.
You probably weren't looking if you did not see more detail. Also, that you are posting one gif of a scene that was clearly made to show off the character walking down the street and drawing the conclusion that all environments are completely devoid of people and life(running completely contrary to even what Xenoblade on the Wii demonstrated) despite there already being scenes from that very trailer that show otherwise shows that you aren't looking. The first scene where he's walking through the hangar being one of them.
There characters in X clearly have more geometry/texture detail and a more diverse range of animation data. The animation is also more fluid.
More detail
More detail
More detail.
I'm seeing a lot more detail in this than in GTA5.
EDIT: seems someone already beat me to it.
Nostremitus
Member
I doubt you were intending to be, but that's how he took it. It was a bit condescending, to be honest.
I made an edit to that post, several in fact, trying not to be confrontational. My personal experience with my PC, the PS3 and Wii U tells me the Wii U is more capable. (Than the PS3, obviously) The problem seems to be that those launch games were built for systems with GPU's incapable of pulling their own weight and having to offload to the CPU (That's generally how both the 360 and PS3 were designed.), but the Wii U has a more feature rich GPU with a CPU designed to mainly do normal CPU tasks. This, combined with the fact that the Wii U CPU only uses one core unless you specifically program it to use the other two (Something a lot of devs didn't seem to know until recently), means that it had a lot more overhead when running code for the older systems. Even then, most of those multiplats ran better on Wii U than PS3, with the 360 version being the best. This last bit isn't suprising as the games were built specifically for the strengths of the 360 and ported to the others.
For reference, check out ZOE HD if you want to see what code unoptimized for the system it's on can do to a game. That's a PS2 collection that ran worse on the PS3 because the game was made specifically for the PS2 architechture.
Considering that the Wii U did so well with those ports and how different everything about its architecture is from the previous gen is telling.
In the words on Criterion "It punches above it's weight."
It's not going to compete with PC, but neither are PS4 or Xbox1. However, if you ask me, I expect Wii U is much closer to those consoles than either of them will be to High end PCs or mid tier PC's an a couple of years. That's why I don't see what the big deal is. In the end, it's no where near as large a divide as there was last gen between consoles, and none of the new consoles are bleeding edge in any way, Unless you want to count PS4's memory, but then a large portion of that will be used for processes that aren't going to get the proper use out of it's higher bandwidth anyway.
At least, that's my impression so far.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Its pretty obvious that WiiU isn't technically on the same level as X0/PS4. But, X is where GTA5 is in a shorter amount of time. GTA5 took the entire generation to get it to this point. So IMO WiiU is like what Shinen said, 2 or 3 generations above the GPU in 360.
I know what you're getting at but you need to realise that if someone took any of those games you mentioned and straight ported them then they would look almost identical on 360 and XB1. You might get an easy res or frame rate bump from sheer brute force of the magnitude that those machines are but that's it.
We know Wii U is unlikely to have the 2.5x filtrate of 360 required for 1080 over 720 but it could very well be powerful enough to handle better lighting and other techniques but we need to wait for Nintendo or dudes like Shin'en to show us.
It has been fixed now, ps3 version is superior to ps2 version by a big margin. (native 1080p/60 fps, more AA, high resoution effects and particles, etc).
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=633946
That's because High Voltage Software/HexaDrive took the time to look back at their code, and fixed some stuff and rewrote a ton of other stuff (a substantial effort). This is not something that every studio gets to do, obviously - especially with something like a low budget token port of Mass Effect 3.
Nostremitus
Member
I know, I was refering to the original release before they optimized. My guess is that if the Wii U versons had sold well enough, they'd get patched too. Sadly, that seems to be the way of the industry now, you release something as soon as it's playable, then fix the issues if it sells well enough to warrant the fix... or if your fans are loud enough. Which is sad because those initial issues can be enough to stop people from buying in the first place.
I meant to type "ran" not "runs" sorry about that.
Edit: beaten
phosphor112
Banned
Let's quit the hyperbolic bullshit. K? I never said such a thing.
I'm not going to explain myself again.
Do you think you can maybe calm down and not be so defensive?
I have seen all the footage released for Bayo 2 so far. All I did was question that absolute lack of aliasing. The antialiasing in those shots posted rivaled even the highest end shots of PCs.
The PC will get ports of PS4/XB1 games for the next 5-8 years, while the WiiU won't. That's a big deal. The difference between WiiU and it's next-gen competition is by no means made smaller because PCs will keep getting more powerful..
The WiiU is a fine piece of hardware for what it is, but I'm afraid third parties will leave it behind..
Will X run at subhd definition and with constant frame rate drops into the low 20's too?
No. I don't know where you got that from but X is more than likely going to use the format that Xenosaga used which means that the it will have HUGE open world environment on a large top to bottom scale. Everything you see you can touch. It won't just be nothing but flat streets and buildings you can't enter with NPCs that all use the exact same animation data and only perform a few variable actions. The individual character are also far more detailed. They aren't just wearing mono-colored flat shirts with drawn on details.
X looks better by a long shot ontop of having a lot more diverse things going on.
Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us anything, since we don't know what "weight" it's punching above.
For example, is it punching above the xbox360?
it could just as easily meant, it's punching above it's weight regarding 40watts that it consumes (which is much less than the 360/PS3).
The thing about phrases like those are it's all relative to the "weight class" that you're fighting within.
For all we know, Criterion is considering PS4/XBone as heavyweight, Xbox/PS3 as Middleweight, and WiiU as lightweight, but punching above it's class...
In the end it just leads to more questions than answers.
I am not hyberbolic, I was just quoting you. Here it is again:
If you have seen all the footage, then why do you make your knowledgeable comments just on selected bits of X and Bayonetta 2? (and the bold part is usually known as sarcasm not defensiveness in direct connection to your comment on aliasing that was supposed to be innocent)
phosphor112
Banned
Are you kidding me? Rockstar made one of the best physics/animation blending engines in the industry, and the motion capture they use to make their base animations and you're telling me X has better animations?
The thing I find impressive about the game (and the gifs I quoted above) is the amount of foliage and alpha effects this game has. It shows that the Wii U has a very high level of bandwidth, exceeding that of the PS360. It's thick and dense and the effects look really good. Beyond that I don't see anything that strikes me as "more detail." And yes, I am including the terrain. A lot of that is LOD'd so it's not like it's rendering every nook and cranny at very large distances.More detail
That's not even a gameplay shot. You can tell because the foliage goes for a much farther distance than it does in the actual in-game footage.More detail
I don't see it at all... Especially not this shot.More detail.
I'm seeing a lot more detail in this than in GTA5.
EDIT: seems someone already beat me to it.
Wii U is just a step above the previous gen. X, though superior to any 360 game, is only a tad more so than the bottom game (though I am not invalidating arguments that the bottom gif is actually superior, that game does have an obscene budget).
phosphor112
Banned
Comparatively speaking, X is not even on the same level. GTA has many more models going on in a screen and has much more going on in unique textures.
The hell are you talking about. From the start I've said Bayo 2 looks better than Bayo 1. It's fucking clear as day, but the picture that was posted was ill-representative of the game. It's like whoever the hell posted the Killzone and Infamous shot. NO GAME HAS THAT MUCH AA.
ArchangelWest
Member
Wow. I can't believe that the 'Wii U is barely better than/the same as PS360' people are still serious about that...
One thing I will say about X though in addition to the great points that people brought up about how GTA V is being developed on very seasoned developer tools and has been in development for a half decade at least, is that between February when X was first teased, and E3, when the second trailer was shown, there's been a lot of improvement already.
The game releases probably late next year, IF they hold to their promise and don't decide to delay. Consider what that means...
February:
June:
One thing I will say about X though in addition to the great points that people brought up about how GTA V is being developed on very seasoned developer tools and has been in development for a half decade at least, is that between February when X was first teased, and E3, when the second trailer was shown, there's been a lot of improvement already.
The game releases probably late next year, IF they hold to their promise and don't decide to delay. Consider what that means...
February:
June:
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Eh, what? The open areas of Gran Pulse were barren and look really bad compared to the rest of the game. The smaller/linear parts of Pulse looked pretty good, and the skyboxes looked nice, but then we're back to apples and oranges.
phosphor112
Banned
I agree. Flat grass everywhere. Most games that came out by then had grass sprites that would fill up an area, but that game had almost none if IIRC.
Nostremitus
Member
Or you could choose not to take one thing out of context.
This is the original quote from Eurogamer.
I realize that this quote is vague and people draw their own conclusions, but he said the same thing twice. Once was compared to it's power envelope, the other compared to its capabilities compared to PS360. Specifically, the quote was about the CPU. I understood his statement to mean exactly what I posted before. The CPU is weaker in some areas because it wasn't designed to carry the GPU but stronger in the areas it was designed to be.
phosphor112
Banned
It's punching above it's weight, and it's weight is above xbox and PS3. Need for Speed should have shown that.
The_Intruder
Member
Better draw distance, better lightning, Textures Pc high settings, yes it's above.
Nostremitus
Member
I took it to mean that on paper it looks to be just a bit more capable than the PS360 but that it performs above what you might expect from it. That's why I feel that by the end of the gen,(If the resources are allocated) we may see games on the Wii U that look comparatively better than launch Xbox1 and PS4 games. Hell, there were games on the Wii that I think look better than many launch PS360 games, albeit at a lower resolution. That gap was much, much larger than this one in terms of power.
Mario Galaxy 2 being one of them.
- Status